ArmA reviews

[oneoff 0]

in some way you are correct ,because vbs and ofp elite are arma

so yes maybe 2003 or so.

but arma pc game was anounced in E32005.

OFP2 which is maybe what your thinking of in 2002 ?

which is here

[4 IN 1 0]

most of us thinks that arma comes from the idea of OPF1.5, which dated back 2002

[Maddmatt 1]

most of us thinks that arma comes from the idea of OPF1.5, which dated back 2002

OFP 1.5 was just a rumour. ArmA was definitely started in April 2005. (I know I said August in my last post, I corrected that now).

Maybe someone from BIS can confirm this. Placebo?

[4 IN 1 0]

most of us thinks that arma comes from the idea of OPF1.5, which dated back 2002

OFP 1.5 was just a rumour. ArmA was definitely started in April 2005. (I know I said August in my last post, I corrected that now).

Maybe someone from BIS can confirm this. Placebo?

yeah i know but thats not the point, developers never stop developing, they are different from human beings:p

[oneoff 0]

most of us thinks that arma comes from the idea of OPF1.5, which dated back 2002

you mean independace lost ?

or

flashpoint 2 announced april17th 2003 ?

it was here unfortunately they, hmm well something happened

i never heard of flashpoint 1.5 until people called arma 1.5 in 2005

ontopic anotner user review.

1. Sorry for my english

I searched optimal settings but with resolution 1680x 1050 it´s problem

I made small test:

Settings Very High, postprocess high - high quality , but only 7 fps

Test screen

Other screens:

http://img83.imageshack.us/img83/5052/arma2006111722553849vg4.jpg

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/3944/arma2006111720593517zz3.jpg

http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/320/arma2006111721023142rq8.jpg

Very high settings ,postprocess low

Test screen

Test screen2

High settings ,postprocess low

Test screen

Test screen 2

Normal settings - I'm playing with this settings in editor, only simple mission , FPS is 15 - 20 (in forrest and big city is only 10-15 FPS)

Test screen

Test screen 2

Other screens

Bluefor,Hmwv,Uaz

Pilot in MI-17

MI-17 interior

Opfor sniper

Low settings, azinotrop filter. and anti-aliasing disable

Test screen

Test screen 2

Very low settings, azinotrop filter. and anti-aliasing disable

Test screen

I can play the official campaign with 20-30 Fps in wide 1680x 1050 only with low and very low settings , but it doesn´t look good.

Optimal setting for my computer is this:

1280x1024 ,normal settings

Test screen

[m@ster 0]

Review by www.gamesweb.cz ( 73% )

http://pc.gamesweb.cz/clanok.php3?ID=6288 ( Slovak )

( 3,4 GHz, 1 GB ram, GeForce 6600 GT so 128 MB )

[Llauma 0]

So it's beginning to look like ArmA is a 75% game. Not really that impressive but I had not really expected much more than that. If they would have wanted to reach the ratings OFP reached they would have needed to add all the features planned for Game2. Hopefully BIS will keep working on it by polishing the details, adding more content for the 505 release and they might be able to gain another 10%.

[Heatseeker 0]

I think we will see many more reviews after the 505 release and if they polish it up some more it might get better ratings, since Arma really isnt a whole new game i dont think 75% is bad.

[EiZei 0]

I think we will see many more reviews after the 505 release and if they polish it up some more it might get better ratings, since Arma really isnt a whole new game i dont think 75% is bad.

Look at what kind of scores EA sports games or battlefields are getting, 75% is low.

Already starting to regret spending that 60 euros, well, ill see next week how badly I managed to waste those.

[NeMeSiS 11]

Look at what kind of scores EA sports games or battlefields are getting, 75% is low.

Already starting to regret spending that 60 euros, well, ill see next week how badly I managed to waste those.

Oh come on, its an upgraded OFP, you like OFP so youll like ArmA aswell. They are giving such low scores because it isnt as nice as crysis, its too "hard" (saying that the AI are shooting way too good etc, while their aiming skill is +- as high as the players skill), and the gameplay hasnt changed alot from OFP, but i liked the gameplay from OFP, the gamplay from all the CoD/Fifa games are the same in every part, but for some reason noone cares about that?

[dmitri 0]

Look at what kind of scores EA sports games or battlefields are getting, 75% is low.

Already starting to regret spending that 60 euros, well, ill see next week how badly I managed to waste those.

Yet another fickle poster to ignore. You've played OFP years - how could ArmA - which is basically the same game + updates be a problem for you?

[dm 9]

Personally, I think this "rating" games thing is flawed. Whoop-de-do, so some EA same-old-shit-as-the-last-5-years sports game got 90%, thats probably because its got the shinyist graphics. I don't think you should EVER be able to compare the scores games are given (often arbitrarily) cross-genre, its just not right. You wouldnt compare the liquid capacity of a super-tanker to that of a jerry can as they are built for different purposes, so why do it with games.

ArmA should be reviewed versus all the other large scale tactical shooters, and not against these 1km^2 BF/CS type games. Then it would get the score it deserves. Also - no game is ever perfect on release, BF2 is a couple of years old now, and its still buggy as hell. CS is hella-old, and its still got issues.

[Heatseeker 0]

I think we will see many more reviews after the 505 release and if they polish it up some more it might get better ratings, since Arma really isnt a whole new game i dont think 75% is bad.

Look at what kind of scores EA sports games or battlefields are getting, 75% is low.

I will save judgement after i try Arma myself... next year.

EA sports/BF games might be more "accessible", popular and polished than Arma, they might have great ratings and still i wouldnt touch them with a wooden stick... Arma might rate lower due to bugs and what not but i know i will play it for a very long time.

So far and after all these years i see many things that could have turned out much better .

[Llauma 0]

I think we will see many more reviews after the 505 release and if they polish it up some more it might get better ratings, since Arma really isnt a whole new game i dont think 75% is bad.

Look at what kind of scores EA sports games or battlefields are getting, 75% is low.

Already starting to regret spending that 60 euros, well, ill see next week how badly I managed to waste those.

Well not really.. At the gamesweb.cz site NHL 2007 received 65%. They also happened to give OFP a rating of 100% so it's not that they prefer arcadish games.

Though as I've said... Most of us still enjoy playing OFP and if OFP was to be reviewed now it wouldn't receive much more than 30% for sure. So in comparison 75% sounds bloody brilliant.

[Hammer Schultz 0]

Come on, as long as those mainstream reviewers give Arma ~75 while giving 90+ to every Doom-clone or some crappy RTS-game, I'm happy. It just shows that they are not the target audience.

I'll start worrying the moment some l33t d00dzon FPS/RTS fan gives this game 90+.

[Peanut 0]

Although I consider 75% a bit low, I started to give a #### about ratings. I have been disapointed by quite a few games that got high 80's or even 90's (Black&White got like 92% in the magazine I buy and it was a major disappointment for me.) I kinda like the new test scheme that the german magazine PC Games has. They rate the missions of the games for how much fun they are to play. it goes from 0-10 and everything above 6 is considered fun. At the end they tell you how many minutes of testing time they had fun playing the game. Graphics still play a role but it's impact to the end score decreased a lot.

[Heatseeker 0]

I kinda like the new test scheme that the german magazine PC Games has. They rate the missions of the games for how much fun they are to play. it goes from 0-10 and everything above 6 is considered fun.

Reviewer goes:

"Running towards the enemy, ahhhh, die, death, kill!! The crosshair vanishes and he finds out that he cant hit acuratelly on the run, then while the enemy shoots back he repeatidly presses the spacebar and A/D keys to perform the most impressive evasive manuever but it doesnt seem to work? Reviewer is shot 10 times in a row by an enemy he barelly managed to see... Reviewer thinks: "Well that wasnt fun! The keys dont work and the a.i. cheated on me with autoaim and invisibility hacks!"

1/10 .

[maxqubit 1]

Perhaps it is the time for some here to have a second look at their brothers who played and loved Elite (btw, also slashed by some of you here!!!!!!!!!!)

We were used to these crap reviews while playing this treasure of a game that 'limited' Elite was and still is.

Haa, now some of you here will experience the same 'frustration'. I'm not surprised a bit about these reviews.

[OIK 0]

Wow i try to keep moral but its quite hard actually reading all these reviews.

One thing i hate most is the AI direct hits against human players .

You can hide in the mountain , you can hide in the wood the AI still will find you and shoot you from a great distance.

Well well i will get my game in February so i have plenty of time to read and hopefully enough patches will come from BIS to make the game more playble.

[EiZei 0]

Well, I just checked out other reviews on that site, seems that they dont hand out eights and nines like candy unlike some other major reviewers.

Even the universally praised Company of Heroes got 85%

[Zorbtek 0]

What we need is a reviewer who's willing to spend some time and discover how much the mod community bumps the fun up in OFP and ArmA, then you could expect to see a perfect score.

[Placebo 28]

Quote[/b] ]E3 05 - novemer 06 dosent = 48 months.

They have been working on Arma since 2002.

Wrong.

ArmA was started shortly before it was announced at E3 05.

[EiZei 0]

Quote[/b] ]E3 05 - novemer 06  dosent = 48 months.

They have been working on Arma since 2002.

Wrong.

ArmA was started shortly before it was announced at E3 05.

How come I remember the first promised release eta being Q4 2005? Seems a bit early for something that was started the same year.

[Placebo 28]

Quote[/b] ]E3 05 - novemer 06 dosent = 48 months.

They have been working on Arma since 2002.

Wrong.

ArmA was started shortly before it was announced at E3 05.

How come I remember the first promised release eta being Q4 2005? Seems a bit early for something that was started the same year.

Because the original planned release version was going to be a bunch of VBS stuff thrown together and prettied up a bit combined with a new island and campaign but retaining almost all of the old gameplay and engine that was to be found in Flashpoint and VBS1.

[shinRaiden 0]

It's easy for us here in our happy little bubble to have biased opinions about the reviews of 'our' game, but I think if we look at some reviews of other unique games you'll see that the allegations of pervasive incompetent reviews are not without merit.

Consider several recent reviews of Supreme Commander for example. One reviewer remarked about he tried to play his "tried and true" RTS strategies of build a couple units and rush. The developers almost had to take the keyboard away from him and say "that's not how you play this game, don't make three units, make thirty, and you're going to need hundreds more". Then the article goes on mired in disgrace about how the reviewer got totally pwned in the testing because he had no sense of how to work with thousands of units.

When you consider that Total Annihilation before it, and also KKND had similar structures as well (KKND2 actually worked so that unit build queues over 10x were toggled to infinite build), and even BFME2 is adjustable for battles significantly larger than any of the Blizzard franchises, the fault doesn't lie with the developer, the fault lies with the reviewer for not providing a technically accurate analysis.

Of course the problem with sponsored reviews or reviews skewed to ensure further products to review persists, and constantly rears it's ugly head. Unfortunately, it's pervasive enough that the little dev's get treated like middling distractions, because according to the bottom dollar, that's all they are to the big giants.

However, the whole concept of quantifying a performance rating to an intrinsicly entertainment package I find fundamentally dubious. Short of arbitrarily pulling numbers out of the air, how can you compare and contrast the inner anguish of Dr. Freeman and Sgt. Kane? Ultimately, it is indeed down to the reviewer pulling numbers out of the air to cloak their own biases and opinions one way or another. That's why people either fawn over or fight against the reviews, because friendly or non, they never reflect reality, only opinions.