1UP Review Gives Arma 6.7

[SlipperyJim 0]

This is an extremely unfair review that shows he didn't spend much time with the game. By the review you can tell he only tried single player and he didn't make it clear that he only did half of his job.

The reviewer obviously is an action junkie that prefers Counter Strike or BF2 than a thinking man's game. Yes the learning curve is a little more steep than an action shooter but it certainly isn't that complicated! This isn't a flight sim with hundreds of buttons.

The reviewer states that only former military persons would be interesting in the game. That is utter nonsense since I am the complete opposite of that. You don't get any more tree hugging liberal than me.

http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3159716

[Kay 0]

Should send him an email stating just that.

[NeMeSiS 11]

Was that the whole review? The banner in the middle of the page is about as big as the rest of the review..

[KJAM 0]

I find it slightly odd, theres a thumbs up button on that page but not a thumbs down, guess they don't like people disagreeing with them.

[celery 8]

Eric Neigher certainly has a narrow point of view into things, although many people on these forums aren't any better either. They're just on the opposite side of the fantasy/realism scale.

[Marines 0]

There are a few valid points in the review, but the vast majority of it is complete nonsense.

My 6YO nephew could write a more concise and in-depth review than that.

[frederf 0]

That was a very schizophrenic review. You really have to look to find where the reviewer actually said anything about the game. The minuses that I found were as follows:

1. Long wait times to get in on the action. (Longer than normal, yes but never more than 5 minutes.)

2. Not a lot of game saves. (Aren't saves infinite in cadet?)

3. Bad Graphics. (I think the graphics are impressive, the best in a flight simulator yet.)

4. Voice acting. (Yeah, mostly.)

5. Bad control setup, overcomplicated. (Really? How else do you do 100 things without 100 key binds?)

Basically said this game is best left to people that are competent enough to use it, are willing to put up with the complexity, and desire an air of realism.

What's funny is he mentions realism, authenticity, etc a lot in his build up (which is over 50% of the words in the article) but never actually judges the game on such. The reviewer was obviously looking for some kind of non-stop action, save the president, big orange fireball kind of game and was really bored with ArmA.

I give the review a 3/10.

[rgndrock 0]

This is the same guy who will mostly give an outstanding review to the bunny-hopper ridden, nade spammer raped, "BFG" loaded, and over-hyped flavor of the month title just because it has good graphics and a two year old can play it.

I think it states a huge message towards realism that he says " I can't answer these questions for you yet (still waiting for my SAS diploma from the University of Phoenix), but I do know this: ArmA is a game best left to guys who know how to disassemble a .223 rifle."  Basically he admits that real soldiers would recognize the good in this game and that his opinion is useless.  The question is, why even post it?

Due to my quest for authenticity, I personally refuse to buy a FPS that has either of 3 features.  1. A jump button.  2.  A laser that kills people.  3. a "BFG".  Thus, I will never buy CS, Quake, Fear, BF2/2142, Doom or any other "Arcade" style favorite.  I would rather have a title with 100 buttons that confuse me to the point of ultimate n00bness, if it offers me more things that I recognize in my line of work.  What would happen to me if I was being shot at and just started jumping up in down on the RL battlefield?  With any luck, I suppose the insurgents would just drop to the ground in hysterical laughter.

As an edit:  I set my card settings to force "Quality" and changed all game settings to the highest I could.  Even though the framerate was at 10-12 FPS, the graphics were impressive IMO.  I have a decent system but just wanted to see everything as it could be with a sick system.

[Gobbs 0]

Looks more like an opinion piece to me. A few statements with nothing offered to back them up, particularly when commenting about the control setup and the "shlepping". He seems to say that you should expect the latter as commonplace within the game. I actually find both statements to be untrue in my experience.

[Jake the Snake 0]

You don't get any more tree hugging liberal than me.

Damn straight man.

[Arrowhead 0]

He reminds me of the idiots that have been giving this game 1 star at the EB review board amongst all of the 5 stars.

http://www.ebgames.com/ReadReviews.asp?product_id=646991

These dumbed down console heads wouldn't know a good sim unless it involved mushrooms and dragons.

[KJAM 0]

I just utterly laugh at one comment on the EBGAMES user review page

Quote[/b] ]This game is awful. It's way to clunky you gotta push a button or key to do anything. A drop down to climb a ladder or drive gimme a brake. You gotta kneel down in front of a crate to resupply. Sorry this game stinks

[psycosmos 0]

Hehe, it's 1up, the bottom of the barrel of gamenews and reviews sites on the net, or at least very close to.

[CanadianTerror 0]

Quote[/b] ]ArmA's control scheme: vastly overcomplicated, poorly organized, and more counterproductive than a counter factory.

Who hired this guy to review games in the first place?

Thats bloody awful.  

[AWDrift 0]

He spent so much time trying to be witty that he forgot to review the game.

[Heatseeker 0]

The only thing i dont get is how the reviewer described the graphics, i would have expected a professional opinion, not an infantile remark with nothing to back it up.

Everything else is expected... from the average gamer point of view. Its obvious that this person is not in to this type of game and is used to other, more traditional formats..

The lenght and depth of this review clearly shows how much effort was put into it and exploring the game, he could have just said: "I dont like this kind of game so im passing it and giving it a bad score!"

Its fair enough that on the right side of the page (where we can read this poor excuse of a review/article) we can find a box with a user friendly <span style='color:orange'>game rating interface</span>...

I give a 1/10 to this reviewer.

[wamingo 1]

"This game requires a specific type of gamer to enjoy therefor I have to give it a rating of 6.0."

Can't they just NOT rate it, leave out the biased crap and just tell the facts instead?

[Arrowhead 0]

Its fair enough that on the right side of the page (where we can read this poor excuse of a review/article) we can find a box  with a user friendly <span style='color:orange'>game rating interface</span>...

I give a 1/10 to this reviewer.

I think that's actually to rate the game, not the review. You just gave a 1/10 to Arma...  

[Heatseeker 0]

Its fair enough that on the right side of the page (where we can read this poor excuse of a review/article) we can find a box with a user friendly <span style='color:orange'>game rating interface</span>...

I give a 1/10 to this reviewer.

I think that's actually to rate the game, not the review. You just gave a 1/10 to Arma...

Quote[/b] ]we can find a box with a user friendly <span style='color:orange'>game rating interface</span>...

Perhaps i should have been clearer, such a mistake is just not a possibility .

[xnodunitx 0]

Normally I don't critictsize reviews but this one is a sheer waste of bandwidth.

We already have plenty of reviews of people saying the game is bad, BUT, they actually give reasons of why it would be to a gamer like themself, giving more insight and reasons you should either avoid or flock to the game.

In all honesty, and I must be blind, I don't see what is wrong with the grahpics aside from the draw distance is far too short and causes visual effects to deteriorate too quickly, otherwise when you look at things up close or near, they look just as good as many of the 'modern' games, problem is distance mostly.

However most games have maps with objects in the way that somehow obscure your vision, making these details seem less noticeable, however I'm not going to lie and say that it can get ugly at times, such as in the mountains, when that draw-distance goes then you either want to be near or far, not in between if visual effects is your thing.

Another thing that baffles me is why people constantly say the controls are overly complex, it could just be me but I honestly have no trouble with them at all, they felt simple to me the first time I tried it really, maybe its due to playing OFP:E, who knows.

But yeah, this guy seems to belong moreso towards the "streamlined" gamer, meaning your 'generic' fps with jumping, CTF and virtually little to nothing new.

So once more, the game isn't for everyone, shame they can't get that through their thick skulls.

[zootia 0]

Damn reviewer!

[Sennacherib 0]

6.5/10 is good for a game with a lot of bugs. and people can't have the same opinion that yours.

personally i think that Arma is poor, no good campaign, no originality (always US vs the rest of the world, this is really boring).

Quote[/b] ]Are these problems endemic to any FPS that aims for authenticity? Does cleaving to "realism" limit the amount of entertainment you can get out of a game? Can you ever really please the casual gamers and the former SAS guys at the same time?

i agree with that; ofp was a game, an excellent game, Arma is not a good simulation, not a good game; just average.

[TankCommander 3]

I also don't see what the hell this guy is on about. Graphically the game is great especially with what it needs to do which is render vast landscapes and host hundreds of AI. If you do a direct comparison of BF2 and Arma, you'll see that Arma has better, more realistic visuals. And games like BF2 can easily afford to have richer landscapes as they are generally 1km2 and Arma has 400km2 with dynamic day/night cycles so they cannot have prebaked shadows etc.

Also with the controls they seem very similar to other FPS's out there with typical WSAD control setup with a few extra for leaning (which other games do too) and crouch, prone. The mouse basically does all the rest with it's menu interface and not much else is needed 95% of the time.

[Baff1 0]

The problem with the graphics is that despite being utterly stupendous compared to any flight simulator or tank game on the market, the game is primarily played as infantry.

It looks and plays horribly compared to other infantry sims like the Ghost Recons, America's Army, Hidden and Dangerous 2, Planetside or Battlefield 2.

We all know why, and accept the sacrifice in return for the flexibility of giant arena's. But splitting the game up into smaller sized maps and then loading the next bit when you get there works well enough and allows for vastly superior graphics.

[CanadianTerror 0]

To be honest, if this kind of review keeps away the BF2 and CS kiddies who this game is obviously not aimed at...

Good stuff!

10/10