Answer me frankly, plz.

[Maximus_G 0]

Is ArmA any better than OPF?

If yes, what makes you think so?

To my opinion Arma is much better. I quit playing OFP because i was distracted with some things like inadequate movement system (for example, it took an eternity to hit the dirt), too much arcade heli FM, some deficiencies in online gameplay that prevented me from starting playing online.

And Arma not just addresses these issues, but also presents some new and important things like JIP, the impact of direct sunlight, more abilities for human-motion, buildings more usable for urban warfare and CQB, and so on.

+ Arma is more potent to grow. I hope there will soon appear fully-functional file I/O procedures, that would make online gameplay even more interesting, involving persistent gameplay, mixed human+AI participation and complex game-world.

Though i dreamed to see some more important features, for example - water, snow, ice, dust, mud... and be able to dig into it... )

[whisper 0]

Trying to be fair :

- I feel CWC campaign was far superior to ArmA campaign, but I didn't finish ArmA's one yet, so it may reserve some surprise. I very much doubt it, though.

- I feel mixed about the controls and animations. The options and flexibility given are great, but too many of them are unstoppable and make things difficult for no real reason. + the default key layout is very bad and makes everyone angry. A little bit of tweaking and I'm nearly back to OFP-like system, with few, but itching, changes :

* I too often keep running after having released the run key, 1 or 2 steps further, and often right into my death.

* the situation for sprinting is FUBAR : you can't sprint (using sprint override mode) from non-standing position, you're forced to use "Evasive" function. Once in evasive, you can't use the functions to raise your weapons, or stop your sprint. You need to stop running by releasing the forward key, and you're stuck in situation #1 above. If not, you get this forced transition delay (why such a delay?) between anims before doing something else. Very robotish behavior, and I don't really see a reason for it.

* And as described above, there's too much transition delais between animations.

Apart from that, I like everything else. Well, some 3D objects blocking you from turning (fences, bushes) completely are also annoying me, but why not? Just something more to deal with.

- ArmA GUI has been done ... well, far too fast. It's ugly and non-functionnal. BI is working on it though. A bit better in 1.04 already.

- And then.... I try to find anything where OFP was better. And I don't find.

Ballistics, penetrations, ricochets. Choppers handling (yes, I find it better than OFP). View distance, stunning terrain details (the attention given to having believable surroundings, ambiant life, ...). AI that outflank you (yes, still much work to do for good AI, but it's better than OFP). Tons of unit without CPU impact (that one is impressive when compared to OFP). Sound system, if not perfect, that brings these little details that make all the difference (sound occlusion, supersonic cracks, soldiers audibles...). Join In Progress. Number of MP players supported.

And I didn't even mention graphics

That makes 3 things where OFP was better, one which is worked on by BI and not too difficult to modify (+ cosmetic if you ask me), one which is annoying indeed but hopefully BI will get their hands on it, and the 1st one which could be a show stopper if that is the point why you buy the game (campaign). Hopefully, player content will fill this void, but I fell it is a bad overseeing by BI

[The Susser 0]

I'm confused. People are saying it's more multiplayer than single and someone else contradicts that by stating ArmA is more Coop driven. Isn't Coop single player with human team mates? Just because the campaign is poorly designed doesn't mean that the user made missions will be. Afterall, ArmA is an improved OFP and contains the same and more?

[max power 21]

I think it's primarily whatever you play, primarily. You want to play the SP missions, some user generated SP missions? Build scenarios for yourself? Your friends? Play against you friends? I didn't get anywhere that anyone said that it was primarily something. There are fully functional multiplayer and single player elements.

[Mora2 0]

Obviosuly in terms of graphics its much better, but tat is just a matter of time, and in fact OFp 1.0 was much less hardware demanding in its time that Arma is right now.

But Arma Doesnt even get near to OFP in terms of playability.

Mainly because thay have messed up aiming control.

They´ve introudced 3d iron sights with terrible sway, too much recoil and ironsights that take out 70% of the view.

they´ve also intrroduced a new shitty taking breath control that sucks badly and rthym in games have just been fucked up cause you need 5-6 seconds in order to aim to someone and kill him unless you are sou lucky he is 2 metres away and you dont have to move.

Cause thats another feature thay´ve sucked at... soldier movement. Its like a robot, it feels you arent in control of it, like if you where typing commands to a cyborg instead of feeling part of it and moving naturally.

An example if this slughisness is the retarded animations.. for example if you are standing up and they shoot to kill you the soldier will stand up to finish animation and then make the animation of death.

Thats sucks no matter how you look at it and explains a huge part of retardness, slow aiming and many things that make ARMA a lot less playable than OFP.

[l mandrake 9]

Its like a robot, it feels you arent in control of it, like if you where typing commands to a cyborg instead of feeling part of it and moving naturally.

This is the only thing I don't like about ARMA, it was the same in OPF only not quite as 'robotlike'. General movement and aiming should be faster, more responsive, almost at the speed of thought...

The complaint about the animations is crap - it was the same in OPF.

[Mora2 0]

I like Armed assault for multiplayer CH and coop, but CTF has become a joke now. I used to play CTF all the time in OFP, but in this i find it horrible to play. I don't recall anyone capping a flag anytime i have played it, but that might be down to some crap map making.

Thats due to soldier movemente + aiming.

A while ago someone opened a thread stating that by the way controls where presented and aiming was achieved that just threw CTF down the trash.

And its totally true, they´ve fucked up CTF just to increase a tiny bit Cooperative experience.

Its like a robot, it feels you arent in control of it, like if you where typing commands to a cyborg instead of feeling part of it and moving naturally.

This is the only thing I don't like about ARMA, it was the same in OPF only not quite as 'robotlike'. General movement and aiming should be faster, more responsive, almost at the speed of thought...

The complaint about the animations is crap - it was the same in OPF.

No its not.

In ofp animations wherent as forced and as " drawn " as in Arma, therefore if you where standing + killed that wasnt as ugly as it is right know with arma.

[Maddmatt 1]

And its totally true, they´ve fucked up CTF just to increase a tiny bit Cooperative experience.

Bullshit.

CTF is fine, movement of the soldiers is a bit different but once you get used to it then it's fine. It's not any worse for CTF than OFP was.

There are plenty of games you can play in CTF if you don't like ArmA CTF.

[ck-claw 1]

And its totally true, they´ve fucked up CTF just to increase a tiny bit Cooperative experience.

Bullshit.

CTF is fine, movement of the soldiers is a bit different but once you get used to it then it's fine. It's not any worse for CTF than OFP was.

There are plenty of games you can play in CTF if you don't like ArmA CTF.

Most ppl i know only play it for co-ops??

we just have a bash at ctf just for something to do once in a while!!

@ maddmat

spot on!!

[walker 0]

Hi all

Over the weekend I played 6 hours of CTF on the 1.04 servers a mix of Urban Hexen Castle style closed box matches and big battle CTFs

So anyone who says there are not any is straight out and out lying

Flag counts were in the order of 1 <> 0 to 2 <> 0 with an alwful lot of flag captures and touches that were not completed.

So I just do not see the same world as those that say there no flag captures.

May I suggest they try the bigger more popular servers?

Kind Regards Walker

[Luciano 0]

I totally agree Mora.

For the coop players (Those who barely played CTF in OFP) who argue that CTF is fine, how do you explain that 75% + of the servers in ARMA are playing non ctf maps?

[EricM 0]

Maybe because you can play good CTF in other games (BF2 for instance) while there is hardly any other game where you can play good Coop mission ? So people playing Arma want to use it primarily for what it is most orginal ?

I don't mind a CTF from time to time, but it's more 10/1 ratio.

[Mora2 0]

And its totally true, they´ve fucked up CTF just to increase a tiny bit Cooperative experience.

Bullshit.

CTF is fine, movement of the soldiers is a bit different but once you get used to it then it's fine. It's not any worse for CTF than OFP was.

There are plenty of games you can play in CTF if you don't like ArmA CTF.

No its not.

In ofp the ironsights didnt take out the majority of the view, they didnt have stupid sway and there wasnt any stupid breath control aiming.

And also soldier movemente wasnt as complex.

You could run, sprint or crocuh, now in Arma there are more key combinations and Sprint becomes fubar as someone has stated above.

All this makes you need twice more time to kill someone than you needed in OFP.

You can claim its more realistic and bla bla bla ( therefore increasing Coop inmersion ) but you cant say its the same cause its not.

And i dont want to play CTF in others game, i want to play them in this one... or i wanted to, cause obviosuly this slugishness isnt attractive.

What i fear is that this type of play is gonna be very unpopular.

OFP did a good job with simulation but playability, theýve reduced a lot that factor and i fear BIS wont be able to make OFP2 if Arma doesnt go well.

[Charlie 1]

Who's Franklyn?

[sixfour 0]

I'll take simulation over "playability" every day. Thats why i bought OFP and later ArmA in the first place. I wish it was even more realistic in some regards.

[Luciano 0]

You have any idea how idiotic that sounds lol?

If your such a sim person why don't you go and join the army, and fight in Iraq. You can't simulate more than that.

What don't you fanboys get about ARMA being a game? At the end of the day, playability decides if ARMA is a failure or not.

Your acting as if a tactical sim has to be unplayable, or playability and sim factor is something completely different that does't go with one another.

[walker 0]

Hi all

There is already a CTF MP thread if this is becomming a CTF thread it needs to be merged with that one.

Please do not take threads offtopic people.

The questioner asked if ArmA is better than OFP.

I also think people who do not actualy have the game should not be making fake and false pronouncements about it when they have never even played it.

Luciano I know you want your own particular style of CTF to be transfered to ArmA becaus of the decline in CS. If you really think that style of play has a following why not buy the game, fire up the mission editor and make that style of mission. That way you can maybe rescue that style of CTF play from its decline.

In answer to the orignal question. The plane fact is that ArmA is way better than OFP. JIP, proper collision detection, bigger islands, more weapons as standard, more clutter, less lag, more realism, better graphics (just try hiding in the shadows) better animations, better terrain, etc. etc. the list is endless.

Kind Regards Walker

[whisper 0]

It's the same 3-4 people everytime. Lack of adaptability, tbh.

The ONLY control difference I see, now that I have setup my keys properly, is that I've 3 keys for difference stances, when I had 2 before.

Oh

My

God!

What a sin BI! What have you done to ArmA?

This sprint issue is only an anim issue. It can be solved either by BI or even by way of a mod. Incredible, isn't it?

Dropping ArmA over such an issue, completely overlooking every advance made in other aspects of the game, is dropping a Ferrari over a Ford because the color doesn't fit your wishes. When painting it correctly could be done for much much much cheaper.

[Jack-UK 0]

It's the same 3-4 people everytime. Lack of adaptability, tbh.

The ONLY control difference I see, now that I have setup my keys properly, is that I've 3 keys for difference stances, when I had 2 before.

Oh

My

God!

What a sin BI! What have you done to ArmA?

This sprint issue is only an anim issue. It can be solved either by BI or even by way of a mod. Incredible, isn't it?

Dropping ArmA over such an issue, completely overlooking every advance made in other aspects of the game, is dropping a Ferrari over a Ford because the color doesn't fit your wishes. When painting it correctly could be done for much much much cheaper.

Hey someone's got some sense

Just because _YOU_ dont like the anims doesnt mean that everyone else hates them, and vice versa. But seriously, if u want them changed, a mod will be out sooner or later with new anims (one is already in the works by Scratch Modworks *i think*).

If you feel the need to constantly moan about ArmA and how they have 'ruined' the game, uninstall it and return to playing OFP.

The thread is not about moaning about CTF changes but about the improvements of ArmA over OFP.

[shataan 1]

'You have any idea how idiotic that sounds lol?    

If your such a sim person why don't you go and join the army, and fight in Iraq.  You can't simulate more than that."

Do you know how idiotic that just sounded?  And many of us have done Infantry in the Regs.  Been there done that.  I don`t see your point.  

"What don't you fanboys get about ARMA being a game?  At the end of the day, playability decides if ARMA is a failure or not.

Your acting as if a tactical sim has to be unplayable, or playability and sim factor is something completely different that does't go with one another. "

    There are many gamers who look for gameplay 1st. I see nothing wrong with that. But many as well look for immersion factor 1st. That means we wanna go thru the motions ingame just like we`d do it in real life..... to a point. Obviously it is a game and you can only go so far.

  So a game like BF 2 for example, or Joint Ops with all its playability yadda yadda, it just doesn`t cut it for those who are looking for that little bit more as far as immersion is concerned.

  There are many mil combat GAMES out there, imho more bases are covered in the genre for the GAMERS who care only about gameplay 1st, immersion and sim feel being seemingly distant last in their list of priorities. , then there are for those who want more of a milcombat sim thing.  So I really don`t think the sim lovers need to be attacked for it. Especially after having to watch a literal glut of combat games come along that look like mil, but play like Quake..... all while we sit waiting for a game like AA to arrive.

 I am still waiting for the U.S. release, but by golly I totally love the demos feel. Can`t fault it. And imho  it already blows FP away.

BIS makes the games that they themselves wanted to play. If 50 peeps on this site don`t dig it, well simply, it is not the game for you.  I have been there done that as well. Shiz happens.   Move on.

[boake 0]

    There are many gamers who look for gameplay 1st. I see nothing wrong with that. But many as well look for immersion factor 1st. That means we wanna go thru the motions ingame just like we`d do it in real life..... to a point. Obviously it is a game and you can only go so far.

Decent gameplay can't be achieved without good immersion, and vice versa. They are very closely connected with each other. That said, it doesn't seem right to consider both notions as separate ones.

[Luciano 0]

1st, try using the "quote" function for better quotation.

2nd, my point was that a game doesn't have to be either playable or be a sim. It can have a balance and be both, like OFP.

But thats not even the point, as I don't dislike ARMA for being realistic. Heck, I like realistic games. I dislike ARMA for being lame with movements.

Your telling me the movements are realistic? Their not, their stupid.

A game is a game, you will never fully simulate movement since you control the player with a fricking mouse and keyboard.

Do you like ARMA controls and movements more than OFP's? Because I don't, and many share my opinion.

[max power 21]

'try using the quote function'

Try using common courtesy and/or manners.

'many share my opinion'

Many don't... so I guess you'll have to be reviewing that premise.

[libertyordeath776 0]

I think Arma is better than OFP. I never played much CTF and never will, all C & h , and CTI types for me.

[john_mcclane 0]

1st, try using the "quote" function for better quotation.

2nd, my point was that a game doesn't have to be either playable or be a sim. It can have a balance and be both, like OFP.

But thats not even the point, as I don't dislike ARMA for being realistic. Heck, I like realistic games. I dislike ARMA for being lame with movements.

Your telling me the movements are realistic? Their not, their stupid.

A game is a game, you will never fully simulate movement since you control the player with a fricking mouse and keyboard.

Do you like ARMA controls and movements more than OFP's? Because I don't, and many share my opinion.

Are you ever going to stop complaining about a game that you obviously can't stand?

You're like the energizer bunny of complainers. You just keep going, and going, and going, and going...

I think you registered on this forum just to complain non-stop. Are you 13 years old or something?