ArmA Disappointing

[Trapper 0]

That said I'm REALLY looking forward to Cold War Rearmed...all the classic units, weapons and missions with all the new engine improvements will be well worth the cost of the game IMO.

Am I mistaken, when I believe that no one of the community members which are working on CWR will be paid?

The game itself cant be worth it's cost, because the only thing that was sold 2006 is a bugged engine then.

[sander 14]

Hi,

In my opinion Armed Assault is not a disappointment at all. It does not stray to far from the original mould (as for instance the Rainbow 6 series unfortunately has) and in addition it offers various improvements over OFP (graphics, multiple gun turrets, larger squads, flight model). It is not perfect, but in its current state already a very satisfying game in which the good by far outweighs the bad. Some of the campaign missions lack polish, but the mission editor and the downloadable user created content (for example the Perpetua campaign) can more than make up for that.

Regards,

Sander

[sudayev 27]

Armed Assault is best exampe - how to throw 30 GBP down the drain. Seriously ? I`m dissatisfied with this miserable product. After spending couple of days I found lots of bugs, bugs, and bugs again and alas not even ersatz of realism.

What is this ? A joke ? Goddamn, I`m demanging ofp player and I want solid product. This aint worth even penny.

Why the hell BIS instead of relasing the significant bug fixes they concentrate of relasing new addons like bike or new airplanes. Geeeez...

The only "+" about this game? Eye catching graqphics, It`s eye candy and only purpose of this game is screenmaking, but what the hell for ?

One thing I know about this game - kids love it. I gave this game to my thirteen year old cousin and he was so delighted with it. Next year I gonna give him ofp 1.96 + WGL5 so the kid will experience what real battlefield simulator is.

Half-cooked product ? Definitely Armed Assault.

[Adv 0]

Just wanted to chime in since everyone else seems to be I fuigure my opinion is just as valid. I am very happy with Arma. not only for what it is but the potential I see for it in the future. I can't remember a time I've sunk so many hours into one game.

Sorry for those that are dissapointed but like OFP you either get it or you don't, there seems to be no in between. As has probably been said before (I didn't read every post) give it a try in a year or so after the tools, patches, and maybe even expansions are out.

I honestly think most players who dislike it where lost in the concept phase, maybe even going all the way back to OFP and not the execution of the development. Some just don't want this type of thing and will never be happy with it. others simply will never be happy with anything. Still I'm always sad to see fellow OFP'rs go I just can't imagine why they can't see what I do but I'm sure the feelings mutual.

[Dark_vityaz 0]

disembarking vehicles still takes far too long for a whole squad.

Yeah, imagine when you`re under fire. Will you disembark so coolly like they are? I think, no. You`ll tumble out of the vehicle and lie down quickly. But Arma`s people are staggering to keep their heads. Respect

[AdmiralKarlDonuts 0]

That said I'm REALLY looking forward to Cold War Rearmed...all the classic units, weapons and missions with all the new engine improvements will be well worth the cost of the game IMO.

Am I mistaken, when I believe that no one of the community members which are working on CWR will be paid?

The game itself cant be worth it's cost, because the only thing that was sold 2006 is a bugged engine then.

You're right, but if spending $40 gives me a temporarily bugged engine that will eventually be fixed and tons of community-made content, so be it.

Very few people who made addons or missions for OFP got paid, but some of their work was better than BIS quality...we all had to buy the game to use any of that content...them's the breaks.

[Moskau626 0]

i think i can speak for everybody when i say that yeah, its a very bugged game and isnt worth the money right now, but what is truly going to make or break this game is the community that drives it. with the game being so seemingly moddable (im not a modder, so i wouldnt know, it just seems pretty flexible) i believe that this game will be truly worth it when those golden mods come out.

think of it this way, Battlefield 1942 was a shitty game until Desert Combat was created for it.

am i in the ball park here?

[Monkwarrior 0]

i think i can speak for everybody

Sorry you don/t speak for all of us.

Even in this state this engine is worth every penny I paid for it.

And it will only get better, so IMO it's worth more then I pad for.

Monk.

[INNOCENT&CLUELESS 0]

42€ is incredible cheap - for that what is meant to be.

I would pay that at least, but per year.

The current engine...is not as stable as ArmA 1.96.

And it is still bugged with 1.07 beta with hundreds of tiny oddities and some real show stoppers. Most of that I assume it can be fixed - question is within which time frame?

The current patch process must suck a incredible amount of resources in terms of money and dev-capacity required for other things.

I mean it is BI fault to stand here with an unfinished product.

The thing that makes me worry is the fact that each Euro that goes into ArmA fixing will be missing for Game2 development.

So what will be then the condition of Game2 when it will be released and they had only the money to finish it...60% before they approach again my wallet?

[BraTTy 0]

You bought Windows unfinished, any diff?

[Sharez 0]

It is certainly turning into a long haul.

I have had ArmA on my PC for six months now, and it has been more pain than pleasure for very little gain

Have come to the conclusion that it needs to be put on back burner for six months, as the single player part  cannot be taken seriously as a game.

The multiplayer side will only be strong when the bugs and patches have subsided to an acceptable level and the poor hardworking devils running servers are given a break.

Perhaps then I may be able to continue the OFP hobby as I remember it

[INNOCENT&CLUELESS 0]

One good thing:

It is the only SW with that approach on the market, hence it is the best! Maybe VBS2 is a little bit better for a much higher price.

Disappointing is for me that it takes a long time and breath to make the ArmA engine "league grade" means you can trust on a engine without server/client crashes, less cheat sensitive, almost bug free.

My last call was late summer until BI will reach that.

I can only hope that the sales in US with the better engine then I initially bought will flush enough cash into BI to do that.

[MilitiaSniper 0]

So.., Is OFP better than AA? It seems to be a mixed view on that one.

Sincerely, MilitiaSniper

[INNOCENT&CLUELESS 0]

Well...from features point of view ArmA improved a lot, just they do not work really as intended. But if you are interested in gaming and you can deal with some serious bugs, ArmA is the choice. If you search for a reliable engine with excellent mods on top, OFP is the right choice for a few months.

[Bunks 0]

Its still far from where it needs to be, but its getting there bit by bit, or should I say patch by patch. There are so many petty issues with Arma that scream at you (things that could easily be corrected) but there are so many bugs its obvious these little changes will have to wait.

Its no secret that I am not a fan of Arma since I still see the game as a step back to OFP/WGL. But to say its not worth the money is purely a matter of how you evaluated something. If you see this as a short term value...its not worth it, but if you look at it from a long term investment...its money well spent.

[Heatseeker 0]

So.., Is OFP better than AA? It seems to be a mixed view on that one.

Sincerely, MilitiaSniper

Simple answer, hell no .

Arma is a huge upgrade, the more you play the more it will grow on you. OPF had that special feel to it (still does) even without addons but i cant go back now that i have Arma.

People always overlook the improvements and pick on the faults. The game needs a bit more work but im having a great time with it (with 1.05 beta that is).

There are a few disapointing things but to get a game like this almost perfect would be very hard.

I already have more Arma gaming hours than all the games released the past year put together .

[Jack-UK 0]

Yeah, ArmA may not hit you as hard as OFP did, because it was really revolutionary at the time... but ArmA has the same feel as OFP (which is great! and its a much improved game I cant go back to OFP.. it would feel worse even tho my PC could probably run it well now lol

[Kirby 2]

I am not disappointed.

I have an old and slow computer and I didn't expect ArmA to even work on my computer. I was surprised that it even runs.

So. I bet much of the crying on this forum is due to people buying top-of-the-line hardware, having their expectations skyrocket as a result, adjust graphic settings to high, then disappoint when their expectations of high frames-per-second were not fulfilled.

Please notice, I left the numerous bugs in ArmA out of the previous paragraph. Just talking about performance problems not caused by bugs.

Back to this old post

I completly agree. I mean we have people moaning they they are "ONLY" getting 30FPS on all high, maxed out settings!

I mean, c'mon, humans can barley even perceive over 30FPS, while higher FPS does help smoothness of movment and perception when moving very very fast, I'm happy with 25FPS on FLASHPOINT, medium settings, for crying out loud!

I'd be happy with 30FPS on low settings in ArmA and I'd be boucing off the wall with 30FPS on all max!

[dmarkwick 261]

So. I bet much of the crying on this forum is due to people buying top-of-the-line hardware, having their expectations skyrocket as a result, adjust graphic settings to high, then disappoint when their expectations of high frames-per-second were not fulfilled.

Heh, yep, we see a lot of this activity

It's basically short-sightedness. The people who bought the latest gear think that they should be able to crank the graphics up to maximum and reap the rewards of buying leading edge components.

Instead I am pleased when these people report low framerates (I get reasonable framerates with my old 6800GT so it scales both ways quite well), it means that the engine is pushing an incredible amount of data around, and the engine will scale for the next few years as hardware gets faster. This is a game engine to last 4 years or so if OFP is anything to go by (even if it ends up in Game2) so I reckon the latest hardware should be scaled for medium settings myself.

[Maddmatt 1]

i think i can speak for everybody when i say that yeah, its a very bugged game and isnt worth the money right now...

Completely disagree, you definitely don't speak for me. I have already spent much more time playing ArmA than most other games. Many games that sell for the same price are over in a few days, ArmA has lasted months already. It has already been worth the money.

Sure they are bugs, so what? They cause the odd minor annoyance but they don't destroy the game. They haven't stopped me from playing and enjoying it.

[Heatseeker 0]

So. I bet much of the crying on this forum is due to people buying top-of-the-line hardware, having their expectations skyrocket as a result, adjust graphic settings to high, then disappoint when their expectations of high frames-per-second were not fulfilled.

Heh, yep, we see a lot of this activity

It's basically short-sightedness. The people who bought the latest gear think that they should be able to crank the graphics up to maximum and reap the rewards of buying leading edge components.

Instead I am pleased when these people report low framerates...

There are a few settings that can chew framerate (shadder detail on trees) but high end handles high/very high settings quite well, i mean textures, shadows, AA, AF, terrain, lod...

So dont be so pleased about it .

[Radnik 18]

So. I bet much of the crying on this forum is due to people buying top-of-the-line hardware, having their expectations skyrocket as a result, adjust graphic settings to high, then disappoint when their expectations of high frames-per-second were not fulfilled.

Heh, yep, we see a lot of this activity

It's basically short-sightedness. The people who bought the latest gear think that they should be able to crank the graphics up to maximum and reap the rewards of buying leading edge components.

Instead I am pleased when these people report low framerates (I get reasonable framerates with my old 6800GT so it scales both ways quite well), it means that the engine is pushing an incredible amount of data around, and the engine will scale for the next few years as hardware gets faster. This is a game engine to last 4 years or so if OFP is anything to go by (even if it ends up in Game2) so I reckon the latest hardware should be scaled for medium settings myself.

Quote[/b] ] * 3 GHz or better Intel or AMD processor, or equivalent of.

* 1 GB memory

* nVidia 6800 or better, with at least 256 MB of onboard RAM.

* ATI X800 or better with at least 256 MB of onboard RAM

* 5 GB of Disk space(or more as needed for downloadable add-ons)

* Windows XP.

* DirectX 9.0c

What's so strange when people wining about framerate and game play DMarkwick when they are with 3.6GHz processors, 7xxx series and 8xxx and 1GB rams ?

Key question is:

- What do you mean by recomended?, recomended for what?

- What do you mean by reasonable framerates?

- What is good resolution for you?

Damn...people have to stop with pronoun!...like, more good, better, less, more fluid,...

I mean we all have different perception scales of things...so for me word "recomended" means game play above 25fps.

There is no other explanation from dev. side what recomended means!. So...I'm free to believe into anything else and I have right to get mutiny otherwise.

Disable AA, Disable Shadows, Disable AF and set all other on Normal in order to have ~24fps with above recomended is fraud!

[dmarkwick 261]

So. I bet much of the crying on this forum is due to people buying top-of-the-line hardware, having their expectations skyrocket as a result, adjust graphic settings to high, then disappoint when their expectations of high frames-per-second were not fulfilled.

Heh, yep, we see a lot of this activity

It's basically short-sightedness. The people who bought the latest gear think that they should be able to crank the graphics up to maximum and reap the rewards of buying leading edge components.

Instead I am pleased when these people report low framerates...

There are a few settings that can chew framerate (shadder detail on trees) but high end handles high/very high settings quite well, i mean textures, shadows, AA, AF, terrain, lod...

So dont be so pleased about it .

Well, OK "pleased" may not be the word I was meaning to use perhaps I should have used a whole sentence to convey the meaning instead. I mean that I am satisfied that ArmA will continue to scale with future developments in hardware, so that I can still add new eye-candy in 3 years time and get a boost in quality from an "old" game engine

[dmarkwick 261]

What's so strange when people wining about framerate and game play DMarkwick when they are with 3.6GHz processors, 7xxx series and 8xxx and 1GB rams ?

I think I addressed this (*edit* but I'll say it again slightly differently. In 3 years time when you're running 5gHzx4 core CPUs with 12xxx series cards and 16GB RAM you'll be able to get all the eye-candy at full res and full speed, and will still feel you're getting something new out of the game even after 3 years.)

Quote[/b] ]

Key question is:

- What do you mean by recomended?, recomended for what?

I haven't mentioned recommended anything.

Quote[/b] ]

- What do you mean by reasonable framerates?

I mean reasonable for me

Quote[/b] ]

- What is good resolution for you?

whatever resolution I can get good gameplay with

I never, ever run FPS counters, if you're spending time watching framerates you're not seeing if you can play the game.

Quote[/b] ]

Disable AA, Disable Shadows, Disable AF and set all other on Normal in order to have ~24fps with above recomended is fraud!

Not fraud, future proofed

[Baff1 0]

In 3 years time when you're running 5gHzx4 core CPUs with 12xxx series cards and 16GB RAM you'll be able to get all the eye-candy at full res and full speed, and will still feel you're getting something new out of the game even after 3 years.)

No, you won't.

Just like you didn't with Operation Flashpoint.

The limitations are within the engines software code, not the hardware.

It's like smoke grenades on the Unreal engine, whether you use a Geforce 2 with a 400 mhz processor or a quad SLI 8800 Ultra with a 5 GHZ quad core processor.

It will still lag.

Improving your hardware will ultimately only do so much.

This game will never run at high framerates in cities or forests. Never.

It's a limitation of the software.