1UP Review Gives Arma 6.7

[Sennacherib 0]

the problem is that too many people here have a too emotional relation towards BIS. personally Bis wouldn't have to try to satisfy the BIS community; but they would have to make a game (a real game) for all the gamers. why? because the more they earn money, the more they can invest in the developments.

VBS series should be the only simulation from BIS, ofp/arma should be their game.

i guess that you know UBISOFT? this company was born in my country (Brittany-france). if they had made average products , this company would have already died.

business should be more important for BIS, than to satisfy 4 or 5 guys from the BIS community.

imagine EPIC who follow their community, damn' UT2007 would be a big shit.

[NeMeSiS 11]

but they would have to make a game (a real game) for all the gamers. why? because the more they earn money, the more they can invest in the developments.

I dont think so. When they would make a real mainstream game like BF they would have to face direct competition against BF/CoD/any other FPS and thats just not something that a small Czech developer without money can win.

OFP/ArmA have their own audiance, it may be smaller, but without real competition in this market people dont really have much choice anyway...

(Or name me another decent combined arms, semi realistic game? )

[KaiserPanda 0]

I think that is exactly what BIS SHOULDN'T do. We're sim-gamers, a niche market. ArmA is the ONLY combat sim out there right now. If they try to market this to the dumb-children gamers market, they'll just be another fish in a big ocean: competing with all the GRAWs and BF2s. -AND we'll loose the only game targeted as a sim in this genre. That would suck.

-I do think BIS should liscence Crysis for their next game. It'd save them time and they could concentrate on more important things.

[churnedfortaste 0]

omg nuke his home from orbit!

[Dallas 9]

BIS can't compete with EA directly. BIS can cater to a much ignored audience and continue to sell their unique product to those who prefere a bit more deept than BF2142 offers.

[Sennacherib 0]

maybe but EA was also a little company in the past.

[celery 8]

maybe but EA was also a little company in the past.

Ironically they released good games when they were small, and as they got more money, their games got dumber and safer so they could securely make more money with games that suck in comparison to titles released many years earlier.

[SlipperyJim 0]

There has been a shift in PC games lately and I don't think the game reviewers have responded to the change. Now companies like UBI release glorified beta tests to the public and the game gets finished with patches depending on it's revenue. If the game does not make a lot of money the company dumps the product and the customer is left with a buggy unfinished game.

Reviewers need to get in the habit of clearly specifying what version of the game they are reviewing and they need to have follow up reviews after the game is patched. Patches have to be a factor in the writing of the review because it is just reality of the PC game market.

For instance one of my favourite games from 1999 was Swat 3 (no snickers please). The game did not include multiplayer upon its release and was added later in patches. By the method the industry does reviews this gem might have been overlooked by many people.

The real problem with the 1UP review for Arma I think is that there are two sorts of gamers. The type that gets in a helo and immediately types "GO GO GO!" and then there is the type of player that wants to check that everyone is aboard and that they have a plan of action before the helo lifts off the ground. The first type of player has A.D.D. and the other type is patient and is willing to wait for the "payoff" of fun.

The reviewer is obviously the sort that takes Ritalin.

In no way do I consider myself an OFP/ARMA fanboy. At best I consider myself a "very casual" fan. I enjoy the games a lot but I certainly am not a hardcore expert like soooo many on this forum. The game definitely deserves a much higher score.

[CanadianTerror 0]

When you review this guys review though, you dont know what he was looking at really.

We all have had different experiences playing Arma depending on what rig we run and what version.

Some of the low lod bugs and some control/sound issues would make for a very bad review nevermind the campaign and learning curve for just using the controls (although the last one I think is just ridiculous IMO)

I started at 1.06 and couldnt not imagine trying to post a review based on the earlier releases.

[Heatseeker 0]

This thread got way off topic .

The great analysis of the current state of the industry, how the bar raised and how competition grew... or did it?

Where is the competition? Where is the military based shooter that offers as many gaming and editing possibilities as Arma?

The bug talk/excuse got old, the game came a long way since its first release, playing (and enjoying) version 1.07b i dont notice any show stopers, Arma never crashed or froze on me...

Large publishers have been releasing unoptimised, dumbed down console ports to the PC for a while now, can anyone contradict that? I am not talking about a developer, im talking about large corporations who have the funds to develop and support their products... but dont.

Arma came a long way, i understand how hard it must have been to put this game together and available out there.

After OPF my gaming experience changed for good, why settle for less when i can have Arma?

[4 IN 1 0]

sh!!!!watch out Heatseeker you will be marked as excuse maker again!

really this is getting too TO here.

i think i could understand why the reviewer giving the score for it, heck i would give it this score if i dont know anything, but what i dont like is his words, looks like to me he is a 12 year old kids which dunno how big(and small) the world is, anyway review didnt mean too much for me now, i only watch game mag nowadays only to see if there is anything i missout(i play both US,EU and Japan made games)

[Baff1 0]

Those same large publishers that have been releasing console ports have also been releasing dedicated PC games too.

With the example of console ports they clearly do have the budget to support their games, and the ports are just a little extra cash spinner. Much like OPF Elite.

On the otherhand they also produce high quality dedicated PC titles.

Not every title is going to be a mega hit. They have their fingers in a lot of pies.

Ubisoft for example, the crappy console port kings, also published the excellent and properly funded Faces of War, Dark Messiah of Might and Magic and Far Cry.

They are a corporation, they will publish anything they can sell and they know what a winner looks like.

A studio with the right product and the will to make the right deal will get all the funding from them they could ever wish for. Not to mention excellent worldwide distribution and advertising.

 

I don't think Arma has any show stopping bugs, but it has a few very noticeable ones. The bugs aren't enough to ruin my experience, but they and the clunkyness of the engine are enough to make me think twice about pimping the game to my friends.

As it stands I only mention it to the ones who like flight sims.

The infantry heads I direct elsewhere.

Flashpoint was positively ground breaking and one of the biggest mainstream best sellers of it's day. Nothing "niche" about that one.

ArmA from what I can see, is a standalone expansion.

OPF 1.5.

Halfway to the next generation. A stop gap, budgetry constrained money spinner.

As someone who still plays OPF, it happens to be right up my street, but I don't think it will be tearing down the doors for the next generation of gamers.

This isn't game of the year material. More of a filler for the faithful.

Review scores of 6 and 7's out of ten in my eyes seem fair.

I think they generally reflect the overall quality and inspiration of the product.

Editing possibilites is certainly one of ArmA's strong points.

I think that any review that overlooks this is missing a trick.

Other games that are strong in this department include GRAW, anything Unreal or Quake or Half Life based; the Battlefield series and IL2.

I always feel that any stated reliance on modders for game content is nothing less than a cop out.

If OPF wasn't a stupendous title to begin with, no matter how great the tools, there wouldn't have been much modding going on.

Ultimately it wasn't the editing flexibility that attracted me to any of these games.

It was the games themselves.

I think the editing adds longevity and value to the product, but in itself isn't my primary motivator for purchasing.

Judging by the inclusion of only the mission editor in ArmA on release, I can't help but think BIS didn't think it would be either.

Editing tools keep the game alive, people onboard for any expansions, or re-releases.

But in the end a games success is made or broke by it's initial release.

Thats when the bulk of the sales are made. That's when the hype is hottest and the market is attracted. It is their one chance to sell large quantities of the product at maximum price for the serious profit margin.

There are no second chances, you only get to release once. It is imperative to get it right first time.

Bodging it and fixing/polishing it up later just won't bring in the bacon.

It's on day one that you need the good reviews, not six months down the line when everyone is already looking at GRAW2, Crysis and Enemy Territory.

(I bet the good folk at BIS are all working extra hours for the next few weeks).

[Heatseeker 0]

Those same large publishers that have been releasing console ports have also been releasing dedicated PC games too.

With the example of console ports they clearly do have the budget to support their games, and the ports are just a little extra cash spinner. Much like OPF Elite.

On the otherhand they also produce high quality dedicated PC titles.

Not every title is going to be a mega hit. They have their fingers in a lot of pies.

Ubisoft for example, the crappy console port kings, also published the excellent and properly funded Faces of War, Dark Messiah of Might and Magic and Far Cry.

They are a corporation, they will publish anything they can sell and they know what a winner looks like.

A studio with the right product and the will to make the right deal will get all the funding from them they could ever wish for. Not to mention excellent worldwide distribution and advertising.

I don't think Arma has any show stopping bugs, but it has a few very noticeable ones. The bugs aren't enough to ruin my experience, but they and the clunkyness of the engine are enough to make me think twice about pimping the game to my friends.

As it stands I only mention it to the ones who like flight sims.

The infantry heads I direct elsewhere.

Flashpoint was positively ground breaking and one of the biggest mainstream best sellers of it's day. Nothing "niche" about that one.

ArmA from what I can see, is a standalone expansion.

OPF 1.5.

Halfway to the next generation. A stop gap, budgetry constrained money spinner.

As someone who still plays OPF, it happens to be right up my street, but I don't think it will be tearing down the doors for the next generation of gamers.

This isn't game of the year material. More of a filler.

Review scores of 6 and 7's out of ten in my eyes seem fair.

I think they generally reflect the overall quality and inspiration of the product.

Editing possibilites is certainly one of ArmA's strong points.

I think that any review that overlooks this is missing a trick.

Other games that are strong in this department include GRAW, anything Unreal or Quake or Half Life based; the Battlefield series and IL2.

I always feel that any stated reliance on modders for game content is nothing less than a cop out.

If OPF wasn't a stupendous title to begin with, no matter how great the tools, there wouldn't have been much modding going on.

Ultimately it wasn't the editing flexibility that attracted me to any of these games.

It was the games themselves.

I think the editing adds longevity and value to the product, but in itself isn't my primary motivator for purchasing.

Judging by the inclusion of only the mission editor in ArmA on release, I can't help but think BIS didn't think it would be either.

Editing tools keep the game alive, people onboard for any expansions, or re-releases.

But Ultimately a games success us made or broke by it's initial release.

Thats when the bulk of the sales are made. That's when the hype is hottest and the market is attracted. It is their one chance to sell large quantities of the product at maximum price.

There are no second chances, you only get to release once. It is imperative to get it right first time.

Bodging it and fixing it up later just won't bring in the bacon.

It's on day one that you need the good reviews, not six months down the line when everyone is already looking at GRAW2, Crysis and Enemy Territory.

OPF:E was not just a port, engine had to improve alot to make the game perform well on a subpar console system, while at it they also improved the graphics and introduced new features, i believe a good job was done on that title, the price was the time spent on it amongst other factors that contributed to its poor success.

High quality dedicated PC titles are subjective.. Doom3 is a high quality production (5 years in the oven) but still just a small corridor shooter with 4 player MP. The scope wasnt very big... i only went thru it once.

Ubisoft releases the worst possible games, graw, sh4, sc:da and their support is almost non existant. I dont see why you excuse a large corporation and come whining in a developers forum.

Some people call Arma OPF 1.5 but what should they call to all the other sequels out there? (Doom3>Quake4, GRAW>GRAW2, BF:V>BF2, SC1, 2 and 3, etc)

You dont understand that some of us are not going after what the publishers want to promote or fund, or the most hyped thing out there either.

Not everyone plays BF games...

[karantan 0]

To add to all this topic and off-topic discussion; reviewing some-thing is one of the most stupidiest things a man/woman can do in his existance; it's nothing but the imposing the (mostly 'wrong' and then badly expressed) personal expirience and the view and the 'reviewer's' (mostly bad) taste on the others, and on top of it if the 'reviewer' rates with a score, then the measure is full. Any person calling himself for a 'reviewer' should be shot on the spot.

[SlipperyJim 0]

As much as we like or dislike reviewers they have an affect on the revenue of a game. Game publishers have been caught bribing reviewers for better scores including providing the reviewer with hookers even!

BIS didn't buy enough reviewers like the major game publishers do! Send more hookers

[bonko the sane 2]

As much as we like or dislike reviewers they have an affect on the revenue of a game.  Game publishers have been caught bribing reviewers for better scores including providing the review even with hookers!

BIS didn't buy enough reviewers like the major game publishers do!  Send more hookers  

lol, you are truly a stainless steel rat coming out from the wainscotting of society (if thats where you got your nick from )

[Heatseeker 0]

I am pleased to see that dispite the editors 6.0 rating and childish review Arma got a 8.7 average user rating, well... it definetly is an 8+ to me.

1 middle finger up to 1up's reviewer Eric Neigher .

[SlipperyJim 0]

lol, you are truly a stainless steel rat coming out from the wainscotting of society (if thats where you got your nick from )

Indeed. Glad to see another Harry Harrison fan

[jasono 0]

What a complete waste of time of a read. He got asked to review the game, so he quickly popped it in the drive, spent a few mins in campaign and thought "Well I cant run into the base like Rambo, while wacking spacebar to jump, im doomed! And omg I can't save or respawn? I mean.. 'realism'. This is a game for crying out loud.. we wan't action. Realism is the opposite to action right?"

Yes maybe the game does require a little thought here and there, and pulling the trigger isn't always the best option. It's people like these that make games look crap without properly checking out the game and playing realistic fun. No wonder it has a low number of players compared to other games..

[TankCommander 3]

Here's something from Megagames.com:

Quote[/b] ] Andrew Pfister, 1UP.com games reviewer claims on his blog that Midway has decided to bunish 1UP for their low Mortal Kombat review scores by ignoring to send them review versions of their latest games.

The story according to Andrew Pfister is as follows:

"You may have noticed that we're running a bit late on our Mortal Kombat Wii review...apologies for that.

Why is it late?

Because Midway didn't send the game to us for review. Apparently there were some bruised egos over there. Or a singular bruised ego. We're not exactly sure. Someone felt left out when Milky talked about top-tier fighting games in some preview a while back and neglected to mention MK, and EGM didn't score previous Mortal Kombat games as high as some of our competitors did. So Midway has decided to not send us review code at all as some sort of punishment. The message? "Give us better scores, or we won't support you."

Whatever.

We're heading down to the store this afternoon to pick up a copy of the game to review, and we'll give it a fair shake based on its merits. We just wanted to let you know what's up".

Withholding review version from a reviewer means that players will get the game before the reviewer gets to review it, or (more likely) they would pursue the review at a competitor.

This is still a one sided story and we are still waiting for Midway's response. We’ll let you know as soon as we get it.

I'd say it's because 1UP is crap and the publishers would rather not risk kiddies reviewing their hard worked products.

[Luciano 0]

Review is fair, I don't know what you guys are on.

I could analyse the review piece by piece and prove its accurate and you guys will still not buy it.

According to you, ARMA is a top notch game, so why does this review bother you so much that you have to attack it in every way? Give the guy a break.

The reason you guys attack this so much its because the reviewer tells and truth and sometimes the truth hurts.

[4 IN 1 0]

it sounds reasonable enought, but then its not really sounds that fair basicly because the scope is different from other games, that says, if i got a football game that is played as a manager of a club, no direct control over the field, but you runs the cooperation, now someone came here and review it as one of those action based football games........sounds a bit over, but the idea is the same, basicly if you want to see a fair review, DONT give them to someone who are far right wing nor antisocialist, but instead natural side reviewers who atless try to understand what different games really are, but with these days game media its almost impossible to do

[xnodunitx 0]

Review is fair, I don't know what you guys are on.

I could analyse the review piece by piece and prove its accurate and you guys will still not buy it.

According to you, ARMA is a top notch game, so why does this review bother you so much that you have to attack it in every way? Give the guy a break.

The reason you guys attack this so much its because the reviewer tells and truth and sometimes the truth hurts.

Armed Assault has its ups and downs, its not perfect but at the same its not crap, as for why we attack this person..I thought it would be obvious by now considering several of us have stated blatantly why.

The reason we attack this reviewer is due to their poor review, not about the game, but in general, they said the game was bad but they gave no description as to why, what they thought was wrong, in depth, you know, an actual review.

[TankCommander 3]

Right, there are many bad reviews out there for Arma but also many good ones and thats fine and nobody is ruffed up about it. As said, the reviewer gave no, or very little, reason as to why it was so terrible. He also approached it as if he were reviewing a different genre like arcade or something. He obviously has no technical background and is limiting his audience to a very narrow margin which would be the BF2 players etc. A fair review would be something that remains unbiased, views the product for what it is and has achieved (as well as not achieved) and scores it accordingly. There is little point to writing a review based on so little information and experience as it only creates misinformation which can be very important for anyone wanting to purchase their next game. I for one would not like to be lead to believe that Oblivion for example would only appeal to hardcore dungeons & dragons nerds because that person would not be doing their job.

[xnodunitx 0]

Exactly,for the heck of it I'v tossed a few examples together.

Armed Assault a great game for those that prefer a more hardcore simulation type approach, if you prefer arcade then this game is not for you. Reason being is that it is a large and wide scaled map based game rather then arena, which would result in longer gameplay times, sometimes just to get to the battle. While some may enjoy this, there are those that buy a game to play it as a game, not a simulation. Some people like to get into action near instantly in their games, some like to play it lone, others prefer teamwork.

Which is another reason the game should not be bought if you prefer arcade, teamwork is a must here. Now of course you can have an online game where there is a rambo and he may get alot of kills provided the enemy team acts the same way. But if the team sticks together, not litterally as in five feet from eachother, but covers one another from flanks, then that rambo won't last long.

Another thing is that people seem to enjoy the ability to jump, I myself have heard people criticsize a game merely for the fact you are unable to jump, if that really bothers you then you definatly want to steer clear of this, there is no such thing as jumping here..unless you count running off a building or out of a tower.

Yet another reason is the complication of controls. In truth I never had any trouble with the controls, I played games such as Far Cry and yes, even battlefield 2, between the two, I got used to movements and leaning. However others in the past have had trouble with the controls. Again, some people do not mind waiting for things such as to control their character with ease, while once more, others prefer to be able to jump the gun, when you think about it, the list is quite extensive. In most games you maingly have to use the W, A, S, D, spacebar, R, V, and E keys, however here you use the Q, W, A, S, D, Z, X, C, V, \, ', ], [, P, L, M, R, and Shift. And that doesn't include half of them, aside from the simple, you will also be combining the Ctrl+G amongst many others. (Thank goodness for the action menu)

In terms of performance you will generally need a high end system to play this if you want to run the game to its full potential, blessed are the PCI-E users. With extensive shaders, a library, literal library of textures, specular maps, normal maps and many other things, you can bet you will have many things loading at once.

In terms of graphics the game has improved quite a bit, there are many things that most will not notice for a long time, some things are obvious while others are not. An example being the vehicles lights, mainly helicopters. I'm sure we all remember the beloved nav lights on the helicopters and jets in OFP, but it was nothing more then a red dot..however in Armed Assault these lights now actually cast a glow on objects near them, this pretty much includes anything, ground, infantry, other vehicles and so on. Others include normal maps, specular maps and various other shaders. However one of the downsides to the game is that it seems all of this suddenly vanishes whenever the weather gets stormy.

Although improved in many area's, Armed Assault at the same has lost a few things, some due to whiners, others due to who knows what. One of these are AI commands, we do not hold the same amount of control over our AI that we did in OFP.

Most noteable being the "Action" commands, when it comes to being in a vehicle, all we can order the AI to do is disembark, we can no longer tell our AI to start a helicopter engine, instead we have to ascend and wait for them to follow to get their engines on, personally I miss the extended commands.

Armed Assaults updated collision system provides 98-99% less clipping through objects then OFP, therefore increasing the chances of indoor combat. However due to the way the engine works, indoor combat is still based soley on using rifles, grenades are not possible to use since they will be tossed directly upwards which would most likely result in your own death before your enemies.

Buildings can be destroyed, not exactly dynamicly nor well by default, a building that dissapears in a matter of seconds isn't exactly a sight to behold, but its better then the paper crumbling houses in OFP, or the houses that did nothing in OFP:E.

The games engine has improved in that you can now have countless numbers of units on a map at any time provided your PC can handle it, a viewdistance of 10km gives it quite an edge and added JIP will make online gaming easier and more annoying in some cases.

If you like games where you are the hero, can jump, vehicles respawn, can re-arm by people giving you ammo packets, can reload a plane with bombs just by going over a runway, never having to land, then this game is most certainly not for you.

But if you like to have to take a shower every day or two because you are getting sweaty, knowing that colum of tanks is on its way, wether or not they will see you..able to kill you in the blink of an eye. Being forced to most of the time use teamwork to even live, keeping a constant eye on the horizon and vehicles once gone, are gone for good. Then you'll probably love this game.

I tried not to get too descriptive..I had much more but I noticed it was beginning to sound more like an explanation more then a review, left a bit in there though I suppose..anyway, thats my mini example, a real review would be faaaar longer.