ArmA reviews

[shataan 1]

" BIS could have toned down the graphics in order to provide better gameplay."

Scroow that.  lol  Playing it maxed is the only way to play. For those whose hardware can`t handle it, there are lower settings to choose right?  

Don`t ask Devs to tone down their visuals. Just choose the provided lower visuals settings. Game on.

[colt 0]

Eurogamer review is up.

8/10

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=73025

"Right now it's an essential purchase for anyone interested in war simulation or tired of the contrived drama that fills mainstream military shooters."

[Balschoiw 0]

After reading the review I wondered where the improvements are

?

[NeMeSiS 11]

After reading the review I wondered where the improvements are

?  

Quote[/b] ]Bohemia Interactive is aware of the inequality and is adding a 'no grass' setting to the first patch.

They are probably still playing 1.2, still, im wondering what improvements you are talking about? People seem to think that 1.5 will be some kind of miracle..

I like the last review, seems that a long-time OFP player reviewed it

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]They are probably still playing 1.2

I don´t think so, given the review date. I guess they were testing the 505 release.

Quote[/b] ]improvements

AI, vehicle damage system, campaign, etc, etc

[NeMeSiS 11]

Quote[/b] ]improvements

AI, vehicle damage system, campaign, etc, etc

Quote[/b] ]While it's true ArmA doesn't make great strides in areas like AI, command-and-control, and vehicle simulation (none of which were awful in OFP)

I think he compared ArmA 1.2 to OFP

[4 IN 1 0]

some how i liked the way it is right now, which just need improvement

maybe he is getting into OFP too much?

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]I think he compared ArmA 1.2 to OFP

Of course he was comparing Arma to OFP. But I beg to understand that he was using the 505 release version. For a 1.02 he would be extremely late and press usually gets the release versions for their country which in his case is the latest 505 one.

[Scrub 0]

Quote[/b] ]My review was based mostly on time with version 5113 but I had access to the latest change list (effectively everything however trivial that's been altered between 5113 and the UK release build)

Only one bug really concerned me during my playtest (savegames crashing) and I've had assurances from BI that this didn't make it into the UK release version.

From the comments.

[zedderzulu 7]

Think this is the right topic?

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article....ite=pcg

Seems to be the PC Gamer UK verdict

7.0

Bit disappointing, especially since they blatantly reviewed the 1.2 version and seemed to imply that this is the version that's being released in the UK. Disappointing because they've technically reviewed the wrong game...

Felt I had to leave a comment about that - but it doesn't appeared to have worked (or I f'ed it up), oh well...  

Wasn't going to stand for it, oh deary me no...deary me...wrote in and complained, oh my yes...

[Scrub 0]

Think this is the right topic?

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article....ite=pcg

Seems to be the PC Gamer UK verdict

7.0

Bit disappointing, especially since they blatantly reviewed the 1.2 version and seemed to imply that this is the version that's being released in the UK. Disappointing because they've technically reviewed the wrong game...

Felt I had to leave a comment about that - but it doesn't appeared to have worked (or I f'ed it up), oh well...  

Wasn't going to stand for it, oh deary me no...deary me...wrote in and complained, oh my yes...

You made it ZedderZulu. Your post is in there. Well put.

[Luciano 0]

How did they review the wrong game? 1.04 fixes some small bugs and crashes, and adds some ponintless stuff like a jet that is not even used in the campaign/missions and has the same characteristics as the harrier, only different model.

In terms of gameplay, its the same thing, so review is fair. I think they were generous.

[zedderzulu 7]

@Scrub: Cheers

Sorry for the ramble but it's just I've been reading PC Gamer for well on ten years now - it's my only real source of game news and reviews so was really looking forward to their review. Not to say that I was blindly expecting that they'd give it a 95+ score - I mean the original OFP only ("only") got 89 (I think) but is still considered an all-time classic by them - but I was disappointed for them, after a very optimistic preview, to give it such a comparatively low score - but especially when they blatantly make the error of saying that they were basing the review on what is, quite frankly, an obsolete version that will now never see the light of day in the UK (well, not in the shops at least). We don't know fully just how much an improvement the 505 version actually is over the previous ones yet, but I feel I had to make a point when the magazine I have followed and trusted for so long has basically branded Armed Assault as badly flawed unfairly. Maybe not wrongly though time will tell - but I do think unfairly.

/edit - didn't see your post Luciano

[.kju 3245]

I guess the problem they had, is just that they got the final ArmA 505 version (too) late for the review. Mags have very strict timelines, so either you are in time or you are out.

As we can only speculate if thats the reason and if it would, what is the reason for them getting the game (too) late - there is no point blaming the mag neither BI here!

It should be quite obvious that BI, like everyone else, is unable to change fundamentals of the game in such short time period. Especially if you are fixing bugs, working on a demo, putting time into two major releases (505 and Atari).

[frederf 0]

If you are a gaming magazine reviewing ArmA you state simply. "We are reviewing the 1.02 version Armed Assault. By the time it reaches shelves in the UK the version number will be 1.05."

[.kju 3245]

If they do know about it.

Its the publisher job to have news mags be aware of these things.

Write them a mail and ask them for the reason. No big point to speculate, dont you think?