ArmA reviews

[CameronMcDonald 146]

...which is what Armed Assault was looking like, in its infancy. You can still find the leftover textures from the "aborted" Armed Assault versions in the BIS PBOs. Man, are they horrible.

[bangtail 0]

the reason for the bad reviews seems to steem from the fact that BIS made armed assault too powerful to FULLY enjoy on certain people's machines.

i honestly think that they put a bit too much on the graphical side and not enough on the little things (like tactical reloads, shooting from vehicles, more air and land units). the one thing they put most of the energy into is the one thing that never mattered to it's fans.

this game is harder on my machine than GRAW, DOOM 3, and FEAR (all of which i ran rather smoothly), and armed assault  did not have to be graphically beautiful. armed assault's strenght lies with the player having control of large size forces in massive areas. if you make large cities on one big ass map, most players are going to have problems running the type of missions that they are accustomed to in OFP or vbs1.

the graphics needed an upgrade, but i think it went a bit too far and my fear is that many in the community will not stay with it. hopefully, there will be an island editor and some of you guys could make some small maps that have built up urban areas for urban warfare that won't kill our machines.

i will say that the open areas are great and the combat is awesome, just wish the cities could be more understanding.  

Seriously, what did you expect? It's 2006, almost 2007 and people with antique systems are complaining. It's demanding, YES. Like OFP, it's the only game of it's type. It's a grand undertaking. It will take time for it to reach "maturity", there is no doubt of that; but as it stands, especially since I have started to design missions in MP, it can only get better!

E

[buddhiraja73 0]

Those who claim they dont care about graphics are liars, honest people will say: "i dont care about the graphics because i cant afford a high end PC atm, if i could..."

Graphics are damn important, ....

That is a rather interesting and correct observation.  

What players ideally want is : the game is highly scalable, with many many options to tweak, so that people with low end machines can also play. Also, the game would not look too bad at lower settings.

[apex_predator 0]

Quote[/b] ] Those who claim they dont care about graphics are liars, honest people will say: "i dont care about the graphics because i cant afford a high end PC atm, if i could..."

Graphics are damn important, this is apparent even in user made addons, everyone wants better models, better textures and better effects because... well, they look better.

If Arma looked the same has OPFR or VBS we would have alot more people here complaining, you can bet on that .

I would agree with your overall point that the graphics need to be future scalable --though BIS seems to go a bit overboard on this; it's a rare PC today even that can run OFP with maxed everything-- but I take issue with your statement that those that claim not to care about graphics are liars.

I don't care about updated graphics for this game. Had ArmA done nothing more come up to par with VBS then I would have been ecstatic. I wanted join in progress and some expansions to existing features and that was about it. That's not to say that I am opposed to graphics improvements, they're nice, but just not what I'm looking for in this game.

I will admit that I think that I am in a minority, though the minority is more signifigant in this game than elsewhere.

But then again I am not overly concerned about whatever the current state of ArmA is becasue all of my favorite stuff came from the community and the ability to say, as an average gamer, "Geez, I don't like the way <insert thing here> works, I think I'll change it." For me this usually means adding realism.

As modding BIS units has already begun I see no reason to believe that the community generated content won't continue, so I'll have many more Gigs of things to fiddle with for years to come.

[-duke- 0]

Well I'm prolly going to get flamed to death for this reply but it's my honest opinion and not meant to step on anyone’s toes.

I believe most of the reviews for ArmA will be either mediocre to good but seeing great will be rare and you can forget about groundbreaking all together. I really believe the reasons for the reviews are because BI type cast themselves and made such a groundbreaking product in the beginning that they would have had to re-invent OFP for ArmA to be revolutionary.

Quite honestly, I believe I've jumped through hoops to get my hands on a copy of ArmA. In fact, I had a buddy of mine in the Netherlands purchase an extra copy and air freight it to me in Canada because I've waited 4.5 years and I refuse to wait another second to play. Then Morphicon releases an online world-wide dl for Armed Assault and since I can't wait, I purchase another copy, dl, install, etc. Much to my disappointment, Starforce is sadly required for the online purchase of ArmA so now I've not only purchased this game twice, but I may have introduced my system to potentially harmful software in the process.

Of course since I'm a Canucklehead (and prolly not the brightest one on the planet), I'll likely pick up the English release of ArmA in early 07, assuming it's released on time. This means I'll have 3 copies of the game, one which will be removed as soon as the German version arrives (due to Starforce) which means I've donated to BI around a minimum of $200 CDN for Armed Assault. Yes, it's boneheaded to say the least but I loved OFP so much that I'm desperate yet still very, very loyal. The fact that I'm willing to pay this amount of money means I've purchased the right to also share my POV here.

Upon loading ArmA I must admit I was a bit put off by the overall gameplay. Sure it's visually stunning but there were tremendous graphical issues to start with, buggy sound and somewhat clunky controls out of the box. I've since gotten past this so it's not an issue but it does help to sour the initial experience some.

Now I'm playing the game nightly and have to say I love it as much (more actually) than OFP simply because I know it will only continue to get better as BI and the community pull together. Of course, this is not to say that this game gives me any more of a thrill (or any less) than OFP did 6 years ago, just updated thrills and the rebirth of memories long forgotten.

Now consider yourself a lurker of this game and someone who tried OFP and played it a bit or gave up on it completely. What is it that ArmA offers you to draw you back to this style of gameplay? The answer is nothing really. The only thing that was added to this game was more saves for novice and maybe a few other bells and whistles but you have to admit, this truly is OFP 1.5 or OFP 2.

Add to the fact that details of the game have been sketchy since day one, videos released were not of the best quality, screenshots were limited as were press releases and what do you get? Now maybe I haven't followed this games development as closely as everyone here but I'm very sure I've followed it as close as I could and even more sure that I've followed it closer than the average gamer. Even if the reviews tanked on this game, I still would have bought it because of OFP and I'm sure most everyone here would have done the same. I'm sure though that the average consumer is scratching their collective heads as to whether or not to actually purchase ArmA.

Add to this the most bizarre and disorganized release schedule in the history of gaming (at least my history) and you have a recipe for an undersold treasure.

I guess what I'm saying is that none of the reviews surprise me because of the way this situation has played out over the past few years.

If I were a part of the BI PR team I'd be looking for someone to get as much mass media and advertising of ArmA in circulation as possible. I'd also suggest that BI possibly look into becoming their own distributor/publisher and maybe offer the game as dl from the BIS site because the way it's being handled now is ludicrous.

Again, I apologize for this reply but it is honest in nature so I thought there would be no harm in adding it. I sincerely do not mean to insult, belittle or offend anyone.

Regards,

Ken

[bangtail 0]

Well I'm prolly going to get flamed to death for this reply but it's my honest opinion and not meant to step on anyone’s toes.

I believe most of the reviews for ArmA will be either mediocre to good but seeing great will be rare and you can forget about groundbreaking all together. I really believe the reasons for the reviews are because BI type cast themselves and made such a groundbreaking product in the beginning that they would have had to re-invent OFP for ArmA to be revolutionary.

Quite honestly, I believe I've jumped through hoops to get my hands on a copy of ArmA. In fact, I had a buddy of mine in the Netherlands purchase an extra copy and air freight it to me in Canada because I've waited 4.5 years and I refuse to wait another second to play. Then Morphicon releases an online world-wide dl for Armed Assault and since I can't wait, I purchase another copy, dl, install, etc. Much to my disappointment, Starforce is sadly required for the online purchase of ArmA so now I've not only purchased this game twice, but I may have introduced my system to potentially harmful software in the process.

Of course since I'm a Canucklehead (and prolly not the brightest one on the planet), I'll likely pick up the English release of ArmA in early 07, assuming it's released on time. This means I'll have 3 copies of the game, one which will be removed as soon as the German version arrives (due to Starforce) which means I've donated to BI around a minimum of $200 CDN for Armed Assault. Yes, it's boneheaded to say the least but I loved OFP so much that I'm desperate yet still very, very loyal. The fact that I'm willing to pay this amount of money means I've purchased the right to also share my POV here.

Upon loading ArmA I must admit I was a bit put off by the overall gameplay. Sure it's visually stunning but there were tremendous graphical issues to start with, buggy sound and somewhat clunky controls out of the box. I've since gotten past this so it's not an issue but it does help to sour the initial experience some.

Now I'm playing the game nightly and have to say I love it as much (more actually) than OFP simply because I know it will only continue to get better as BI and the community pull together. Of course, this is not to say that this game gives me any more of a thrill (or any less) than OFP did 6 years ago, just updated thrills and the rebirth of memories long forgotten.

Now consider yourself a lurker of this game and someone who tried OFP and played it a bit or gave up on it completely. What is it that ArmA offers you to draw you back to this style of gameplay? The answer is nothing really. The only thing that was added to this game was more saves for novice and maybe a few other bells and whistles but you have to admit, this truly is OFP 1.5 or OFP 2.

Add to the fact that details of the game have been sketchy since day one, videos released were not of the best quality, screenshots were limited as were press releases and what do you get? Now maybe I haven't followed this games development as closely as everyone here but I'm very sure I've followed it as close as I could and even more sure that I've followed it closer than the average gamer. Even if the reviews tanked on this game, I still would have bought it because of OFP and I'm sure most everyone here would have done the same. I'm sure though that the average consumer is scratching their collective heads as to whether or not to actually purchase ArmA.

Add to this the most bizarre and disorganized release schedule in the history of gaming (at least my history) and you have a recipe for an undersold treasure.

I guess what I'm saying is that none of the reviews surprise me because of the way this situation has played out over the past few years.

If I were a part of the BI PR team I'd be looking for someone to get as much mass media and advertising of ArmA in circulation as possible. I'd also suggest that BI possibly look into becoming their own distributor/publisher and maybe offer the game as dl from the BIS site because the way it's being handled now is ludicrous.

Again, I apologize for this reply but it is honest in nature so I thought there would be no harm in adding it. I sincerely do not mean to insult, belittle or offend anyone.

Regards,

Ken

Being Canadian myself , I empathize  It has been a strange release to say the least! As much as I am unhappy with the bugs, I think Arma shows great potential. I urge everyone to give BIS a chance. They are not a big developer and lets be honest, they care about their customer base. They held out and didn't get into bed with big publishers in order to stay true to the fans. How many companies do that nowadays? They could have milked the brand name for all its worth but they didn't! They tried to stick with their playerbase and they should not be penalised for that. In a world where the $ is king, they chose to stay true to their fanbase. Lets give them a chance to make good.

E

[Timblesink 0]

Well said, mate. I agree whole-heartedly.

And since I couldn't find a better place to put this, I know what'd make the AI better - more individuality. The AI members of a squad act as one in OFP and ArmA, but they should act as individuals who are being lead by the squad leader. This may already be coming into play with VBS2's Agent AI, but I'm not totally sure what that's all about anyway. My advice to BIS - More Individual AI For ArmA.

[max power 21]

Quote[/b] ]

Ethne wrote:

This means I'll have 3 copies of the game, one which will be removed as soon as the German version arrives (due to Starforce)

I'm not sure you're going to like the securerom very much iether

[-duke- 0]

Quote[/b] ]

Ethne wrote:

This means I'll have 3 copies of the game, one which will be removed as soon as the German version arrives (due to Starforce)

I'm not sure you're going to like the securerom very much iether

Sadly I have no choice.

I sincerely hope BI studies these topics and looks into other means to secure their investment but not at the risk of the end user.

[buddhiraja73 0]

I think Arma shows great potential. I urge everyone to give BIS a chance. They are not a big developer and lets be honest, they care about their customer base. They held out and didn't get into bed with big publishers in order to stay true to the fans. How many companies do that nowadays? They could have milked the brand name for all its worth but they didn't! They tried to stick with their playerbase and they should not be penalised for that. In a world where the $ is king, they chose to stay true to their fanbase. Lets give them a chance to make good.

Very well said, just my thoughts. BIS has decided to produce a game for pc gamers in this age of console mania, please the hardcore military sim group, stay true to it's original fan base and not go with the whims of a big publisher. That is something most other developers have not done.

We should extend our full support to this very talented dev team in BIS. Bugs will be removed by patches shortly and that is not a major worry. ( One patch is out already ) ArmA has more potential and scope than any other game that is on the horizon currently. This is the only game which gives us complete freedom, a living world, simulation-type gameplay and realism in modern settings.

[450R 1]

Duke, very good post ... can't really add anything to it. Hopefully BI has learned some lessons in PR and release management / logistics. No one wants to see another nightmare like this, least of all them, I'm sure.

[-duke- 0]

Duke, very good post ... can't really add anything to it. Hopefully BI has learned some lessons in PR and release management / logistics. No one wants to see another nightmare like this, least of all them, I'm sure.

Thanks man, I wasn't sure what to expect with that novella of mine, especially being new to the community.

I just want to re-iterate that I'm definitely on board with BIS and will stay with this game for years I bet. I love the fact that BIS supports the community and in turn, the community supports the game. It truly is a I scratch your back, you scratch mine, kinda relationship and an enjoyful one at that.

What I'd like to see is BIS consider handling their own future releases such as ISI did with rFactor. I don't care if I have to dl the software, so long as I don't have to spend hundreds of dollars and put my PC at risk to do it.

I'm really excited to see how this game shapes up in another 6 months. I just hope that BIS wakes up and starts a major advertising campaign because I'd hate for ArmA to flop and be the end of consumer based gaming at BIS.

[bugkill 7]

the reason for the bad reviews seems to steem from the fact that BIS made armed assault too powerful to FULLY enjoy on certain people's machines.

i honestly think that they put a bit too much on the graphical side and not enough on the little things (like tactical reloads, shooting from vehicles, more air and land units). the one thing they put most of the energy into is the one thing that never mattered to it's fans.

this game is harder on my machine than GRAW, DOOM 3, and FEAR (all of which i ran rather smoothly), and armed assault  did not have to be graphically beautiful. armed assault's strenght lies with the player having control of large size forces in massive areas. if you make large cities on one big ass map, most players are going to have problems running the type of missions that they are accustomed to in OFP or vbs1.

the graphics needed an upgrade, but i think it went a bit too far and my fear is that many in the community will not stay with it. hopefully, there will be an island editor and some of you guys could make some small maps that have built up urban areas for urban warfare that won't kill our machines.

i will say that the open areas are great and the combat is awesome, just wish the cities could be more understanding.  

I agree that the high system requirements might turn some people off due to HW upgrade costs but we have to think about Arma has a relatively future proof and expandable "game", just like Flashpoint is .

Next year many things will change, current HW prices will drop, DX10 will come out, etc. The graphics have to impress potential customers and be future proof. Arma is the type of game that will hook people for much longer than the average play&throw away game, BIS is well aware of that.

Those who claim they dont care about graphics are liars, honest people will say: "i dont care about the graphics because i cant afford a high end PC atm, if i could..."

Graphics are damn important, this is apparent even in user made addons, everyone wants better models, better textures and better effects because... well, they look better.

If Arma looked the same has OPFR or VBS we would have alot more people here complaining, you can bet on that .

i agree that graphics can be important, but armed assault did not need to make the leap it did. the game looks absolutely beautiful and i'm making some great missions in the woodland and open areas, but the cities are a bit too much on the machine. i can play it, but not as good as i would want to.

i have a pretty good comp and i play many other other gfx "heavy" games with no problem. the problem with armed assault being this taxing is that it undercuts it's main attraction, a simulated battlefield.

ofp had "horrible" graphics, but was the best military sim ever created and the community made it even better. i feel that armed assault could have been either at the same gfx level of vbs1 or a tad bit lower, and more limitations could have been addressed.

i still love the game, but more thought should have been given to the fact that some of the people out there that are huge fans, don't have deep pockets. some people can't get a top of the line computer and i think that should have been looked at more.

the graphics has taken away some of the gameplay and the large scale battles have taken an hit, and that is pretty much my only gripe about armed assault. the new animations, commands, unit models, swimming, and other additions that are not in the game should have been number one, not the graphics.

i know we are in a "next gen" world, but many people don't have "next gen" jobs.

[bangtail 0]

the reason for the bad reviews seems to steem from the fact that BIS made armed assault too powerful to FULLY enjoy on certain people's machines.

i honestly think that they put a bit too much on the graphical side and not enough on the little things (like tactical reloads, shooting from vehicles, more air and land units). the one thing they put most of the energy into is the one thing that never mattered to it's fans.

this game is harder on my machine than GRAW, DOOM 3, and FEAR (all of which i ran rather smoothly), and armed assault  did not have to be graphically beautiful. armed assault's strenght lies with the player having control of large size forces in massive areas. if you make large cities on one big ass map, most players are going to have problems running the type of missions that they are accustomed to in OFP or vbs1.

the graphics needed an upgrade, but i think it went a bit too far and my fear is that many in the community will not stay with it. hopefully, there will be an island editor and some of you guys could make some small maps that have built up urban areas for urban warfare that won't kill our machines.

i will say that the open areas are great and the combat is awesome, just wish the cities could be more understanding.  

I agree that the high system requirements might turn some people off due to HW upgrade costs but we have to think about Arma has a relatively future proof and expandable "game", just like Flashpoint is .

Next year many things will change, current HW prices will drop, DX10 will come out, etc. The graphics have to impress potential customers and be future proof. Arma is the type of game that will hook people for much longer than the average play&throw away game, BIS is well aware of that.

Those who claim they dont care about graphics are liars, honest people will say: "i dont care about the graphics because i cant afford a high end PC atm, if i could..."

Graphics are damn important, this is apparent even in user made addons, everyone wants better models, better textures and better effects because... well, they look better.

If Arma looked the same has OPFR or VBS we would have alot more people here complaining, you can bet on that .

i agree that graphics can be important, but armed assault did not need to make the leap it did. the game looks absolutely beautiful and i'm making some great missions in the woodland and open areas, but the cities are a bit too much on the machine. i can play it, but not as good as i would want to.

i have a pretty good comp and i play many other other gfx "heavy" games with no problem. the problem with armed assault being this taxing is that it undercuts it's main attraction, a simulated battlefield.

ofp had "horrible" graphics, but was the best military sim ever created and the community made it even better. i feel that armed assault could have been either at the same gfx level of vbs1 or a tad bit lower, and more limitations could have been addressed.

i still love the game, but more thought should have been given to the fact that some of the people out there that are huge fans, don't have deep pockets. some people can't get a top of the line computer and i think that should have been looked at more.

the graphics has taken away some of the gameplay and the large scale battles have taken an hit, and that is pretty much my only gripe about armed assault. the new animations, commands, unit models, swimming, and other additions that are not in the game should have been number one, not the graphics.

i know we are in a "next gen" world, but many people don't have "next gen" jobs.

In most cases, as far as PC gaming goes, you are going to have to spend a moderate amount of money to get reasonable performance. I'm not saying it's "fair" or "right" but it is reality. PC gaming, for the most part, is a fairly expensive proposition.

In the case of Armed Assault, you have a huge world with 1000s of variables. When I read the performance complaints, I skim down the post to the specs and I see things like 6600 and X1300. No offense to anyone, but these are budget cards. You are not going to get "Very High" performance with that kind of hardware. It's not BIS's fault, its the reality of PC gaming.

In the case of the 6600 we are talking about technology that is 3 generations old now. Yes, technology moves at an expeditious pace, especially lately. There are bugs in ArmA, and they need to be fixed but the game running badly on your antiquated hardware is not a bug and whining and shouting abuse won't fix the problem. I'm not trying to insult anyone and I realise not everyone can afford the best hardware available but you CAN find a happy medium without filing for bankruptcy.

E

[m@ster 0]

Reviews;

http://www.ofp-arma.cznhl.com/arma_reviews.php

[bugkill 7]

In most cases, as far as PC gaming goes, you are going to have to spend a moderate amount of money to get reasonable performance. I'm not saying it's "fair" or "right" but it is reality. PC gaming, for the most part, is a fairly expensive proposition.

In the case of Armed Assault, you have a huge world with 1000s of variables. When I read the performance complaints, I skim down the post to the specs and I see things like 6600 and X1300. No offense to anyone, but these are budget cards. You are not going to get "Very High" performance with that kind of hardware. It's not BIS's fault, its the reality of PC gaming.

In the case of the 6600 we are talking about technology that is 3 generations old now. Yes, technology moves at an expeditious pace, especially lately. There are bugs in ArmA, and they need to be fixed but the game running badly on your antiquated hardware is not a bug and whining and shouting abuse won't fix the problem. I'm not trying to insult anyone and I realise not everyone can afford the best hardware available but you CAN find a happy medium without filing for bankruptcy.

E

well, i don't have a low end card (ati all in wonder 800 series 256mb) and my system has always been able to play gfx heavy games, but the gameplay of those games allow the graphics to be that high. the type of gameplay for armed assault does not require a high dose of graphics in order to be able to create and simulate large scale battles without too much sacrifice to your machine.

i'm not defending those that need new computers, but i'm pointing out that armed assault should have no business trying to compete graphically against other "squad based" shooters.

ofp needed a definite facelift, but it did not have to come to this high of a price. i would gladly trade in the lack of moving while reloading or changing weps for toned down graphics anyday. i would love to trade in the high end scenery for more units and large scale urban battles, you bet.

this armed assault would be perfect for my xbox 360, but the PC version does not need to be this way, just my honest opinion.

[CanisDEK 1]

can we make this lockey ?

surely with updates and new screenshots this is covered

I am sure the moderators can handle their job without your advice.

[bangtail 0]

well, i don't have a low end card (ati all in wonder 800 series 256mb) and my system has always been able to play gfx heavy games, but the gameplay of those games allow the graphics to be that high. the type of gameplay for armed assault does not require a high dose of graphics in order to be able to create and simulate large scale battles without too much sacrifice to your machine.

i'm not defending those that need new computers, but i'm pointing out that armed assault should have no business trying to compete graphically against other "squad based" shooters.

ofp needed a definite facelift, but it did not have to come to this high of a price. i would gladly trade in the lack of moving while reloading or changing weps for toned down graphics anyday. i would love to trade in the high end scenery for more units and large scale urban battles, you bet.

this armed assault would be perfect for my xbox 360, but the PC version does not need to be this way, just my honest opinion.

An x800? I had one of those 2 years ago. Again, I'm not trying to be nasty but this is NOT even a decent Graphics card these days. Its not realistic to expect to play the latest games on 2 year old hardware.

E

[Placebo 29]

Bugkill and Ethne there's no need to keep 20 messages in quotes to reply, please edit so only the relevant part that you're replying to is quoted.

[bugkill 7]

An x800? I had one of those 2 years ago. Again, I'm not trying to be nasty but this is NOT even a decent Graphics card these days. Its not realistic to expect to play the latest games on 2 year old hardware.

E

dude, are you serious? i just played many games that are considered hard on systems with no issues. to say my card is 2 yrs old is irrelevant, it has nothing to do with the fact that BIS could have toned down the graphics in order to provide better gameplay.

i'm not thinking about myself on this issue and i feel that the game should not be harder on my machine (only when making missions in the cities) than vbs1, GRAW, and other gfx heavy games.

you appear to believe that eye candy is more important than gameplay and i totally disagree with you, especially when it concerns the ofp franchise. armed assault should have had the same gfx level as vbs1 or a tad bit lower, with new animations and features. they did not have to re-invent the wheel, just needed to take the tarnish off it.

there are many improvements to the game, but there are still limitations that should have been addressed (listed some in my previous post). i felt that they were ignored and that most of the concentration was on the graphics, which is not a big priority with the ofp community. ofp needed an overhaul on the graphics side, but not an overhaul x2.

you are entitled to your opinion and we just differ. i enjoy armed assault, but i'm not going to fork over more money for a new gfx card, when i have nice vid card that has played all the games that have been out (AA is the first one i had a problem with).

Edit:

by the way, i have a x800xt all in wonder 256mb and i have yet to not be able to play any games that are heavy on gfx.

See you didn't need to make a double post to add that line - Placebo

[billy 0]

ok my own little feedback. i have been a fan of ofp for 5 years..been waiting for 5 years too for an major update to the game engine. what i dont like about this game is the grass. i hate it. this type of grass..can't see shitt and not only that, it drains fps i would have prefer the grass like in the xbox version..another bad, no artillary, i dont want cannon, i want artillary that go up and then come down...not straight, got the tank for that alreay..sadly im dissappointing because its been 5 funking years..i should have been able to shoot people from the back of pickup..tank..maybe some trench and hole in the ground for cover..not some high grass that hinders your view but actually not the ai? think of armed assault as novalogic's delta force 2...there you have it..i give armed assault a C+

[Allenn 0]

http://www.gamingtarget.com/article.php?artid=6363

a new ArmA English import review

[colt 0]

Just browsing http://www.armed-assault-zone.com and they report that PC Zone (UK) have awarded ArmA 84%

http://www.armed-assault-zone.com/forum....id=1870  for more info.

PC Gamer will also be reviewing Arma next issue (Feb 15th) and may have a demo - although details about what the demo will consist of aren't available.

Personally from what I've read from the more constructive posts on various forums, I think scores of 80% to 85% is bang on the money.

[colt 0]

New review form GameCentral (TeleText in the UK Channel 4 / S4C page 307)

7/10

(from what I remember)

Pros: Near-infinite potential as the most comprehensive war sim on the pc. Editor, great multiplayer.

Cons: Short single player, minor bugs, confusing options, unfairly competent AI.

[Maddmatt 1]

PC Gamer will also be reviewing Arma next issue (Feb 15th) and may have a demo - although details about what the demo will consist of aren't available.

The demo has already been out for a while.