Arrowhead 0 Posted May 25, 2007 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. No it wouldn't work well enough when you're screaming by in a Harrier providing GBU support. Anyways, I think the graphics look just great, and I'm running on Normal settings. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
xnodunitx 0 Posted May 25, 2007 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. Oh lord please tell me you did not just call bf2 an infantry sim. As for graphics...okay..tell ya what, I'll go into bf2 and Armed Assault and take screenshots of the vehicles in various aspects similar to eachother and we'll see whats so bad about it. As for the loading, yes this is true and again is an obviously displayed difference between fps and simlike games. @ CanadianTerror Hmm...now that you put it that way... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shataan 1 Posted May 25, 2007 "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! " Totally agree. Another thing. BIS has always said they made the games that THEY wanted to play. And they are not alone. As well, You don`t go to Reviewers who primarrilly review quakers, to Review a Sim. About the only review I`d give creedence to would be SimHQs ArmA Review. Since Sims seems to be all but dead these days, ya can`t blame a kiddie quaker reviewer. Quite honestly... they prolly have no clue WHAT to think of ArmA... cause it ain`t BF, it ain`t yadda yadda bladda. For which I am VERY thankful. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
-Puma- 2 Posted May 25, 2007 In every review they say graphics are bad etc. I can't understand, because arma looks beautifull to me(granted I havent really played all of these new titles), but it left me thinking, did they actually turn up the resolution, or just left it at default 800x600 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kronzky 5 Posted May 25, 2007 I wouldn't worry too much about these scores. They're not gonna keep anybody away who's looking for a game like ArmA. For one, reviewers just don't seem to get that the things they bitch about (too hard, too slow, too complex, etc.) will actually be the main attraction for a potential ArmA player! So as long as they say why they hated it, then that's ok. Readers will see that this reviewer obviously lives on a different planet and ignore the ridiculous point score. The fact that users seem to have different standards from reviewers also becomes quite obvious once you look at the reader scores. They are consistently much higher than the "official ones" (even on the same site). For example: 1UP: Reviewer: 6.0, Users: 8.1 GameSpot: Reviewer: 7.0, Users: 8.3 Perhaps the general gamer is more sophisticated and interested in real challenges than most reviewers and game companies expect them to be... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
frederf 0 Posted May 25, 2007 When I hear a game is "too complex" I get all excited. The best games to me I do not master in 10 minutes because they are simple and "accesible." I rather enjoy getting better and better at the game, discovering new features, and making it second nature over months not minutes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
INNOCENT&CLUELESS 0 Posted May 25, 2007 Give this guy "Moorhuhn" and he will be happy about the best FPS with integrated chicken flight sim with accurate simulated chicken flight physics and easy to control: just 2 mouse buttons. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NeMeSiS 11 Posted May 25, 2007 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. With the small difference that people here 1. Are capable of understanding why its possible to like BF2, but generally people here are afraid that ArmA will turn into something like that. (We like it because its different, this also explains the 'why dont you go play BF2/CoD/whatever' comments) 2. The guy is a reviewer, if he doesnt like racing games he cant just give it a bad score because he doesnt like to drive. This is exactly what he just did. (Im just responding because im called a fanboy often enough to start assuming that it is impossible to like this game, and if you do you must be a BI fanboy that may even be paid by BI to say positive things here on the forums. ) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maddogx 13 Posted May 25, 2007 As people have stated before me, that reviewer is just totally laughable. I wondered if he had even played the game at all. The next person who claims ArmA has sub-par graphics should to be lynched by an angry mob of ArmA fanboys. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
INNOCENT&CLUELESS 0 Posted May 25, 2007 I am fine with graphics, except they are buggy due to the 8800, but this reviewer was testing so bad, he did not found any bug or was not aware that some fuzzy things might not be intended. This guy is someone from the street that can not even turn on a computer without assistance. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bravo 6 0 Posted May 25, 2007 i really don't see the point of all these Reviews.. Who cares about them anyway? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
INNOCENT&CLUELESS 0 Posted May 25, 2007 BI? Morphicon? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bravo 6 0 Posted May 25, 2007 BI? Morphicon? im sure they are not worryed about them.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
l mandrake 9 Posted May 25, 2007 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 I could not possibly agree more. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JdB 151 Posted May 25, 2007 BI? Morphicon? im sure they are not worryed about them.. I'm not sure about that. Sure, this game is aimed at gamers looking for a more realistic challence, but on the other hand BIS certainly wouldn't object against better reviews by, and sales to, the average gamer. People may call this reviewer things to the extent of an "uninformed kiddie BF2 hugger", but you've gotta realise that this is also the way that the average gamer looks at it. OFP sold far more than 1 million copies, and I doubt all of those went to hardcore players, getting a longlasting community is nice for a gamedeveloper, but high sales records are far more important for the survival and expansion of the company. I also agree with what D@nte said, the game is just too unfinished to get any really high grades based on the "out of the box" product. Most of the higher scores are more based on promise then on immediate deliverance of result, even many longtime OFP players admit that ArmA needs alot of patching to get anywhere near what earlier OFP was in terms of stability. You can't expect a reviewer that is not a fan of OFP as well to give ArmA a really high grade at this point. Most people when reviewing reviews do exactly the same as what the accuse the reviewers off, letting their own opinion get in the way of facts. Too much emotion, too narrow a view to see the larger picture in the videogame industry. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dwarden 1124 Posted May 25, 2007 there is one very sad things about reviews of popular and long lifetime games and that are no 're-reviews' after game being updates with patches and new content ... i can understood this for printed magazines ... but today in world full of e-zines it should be easy (many major printed magazines got theirs 'lite' or 'full' e-zine version) it only shows that quality of press is still lagging behind evolution of E industry ofc there are some exceptions and i always get respect for reviewer who takes his time to re-review game after some time with latest patches/bonus content etc. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Heatseeker 0 Posted May 25, 2007 The problem with these reviews is that they kill the game, people come across 2 or more of these and are turned away. They slant the game without even understanding it. The elitist attitude of "keeping CS'ers away" is not good, before OPF came out i used to play all kinds of shooters (well, except sci-fi stuff). My first impressions of OPF werent very good, it grew on me... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Baff1 0 Posted May 25, 2007 there is one very sad things about reviews of popular and long lifetime games and that are no 're-reviews' after game being updates with patches and new content ...i can understood this for printed magazines ... but today in world full of e-zines it should be easy (many major printed magazines got theirs 'lite' or 'full' e-zine version) it only shows that quality of press is still lagging behind evolution of E industry ofc there are some exceptions and i always get respect for reviewer who takes his time to re-review game after some time with latest patches/bonus content etc. Om the contrary, it shows that reviewers wish to uphold the consumer standards that publishers prefer to let slip. That they are firmly on the side of the customer, and not lapdogs to the people who pay to advertise with them. On  no account should games be reviewed after patching. They should be patched before publishing. People who condone post release patching are ruining PC gaming for the rest of us. If you accept low production values and pay for them, a new standard is set. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
INNOCENT&CLUELESS 0 Posted May 25, 2007 That I sign Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Balschoiw 0 Posted May 25, 2007 Quote[/b] ]there is one very sad things about reviews of popular and long lifetime games and that are no 're-reviews' after game being updates with patches and new content ... I know that there are at least 2 german print magazines who recheck and revalidate products if there are major patches that either fix a lot of bugs and/or add more content. Apart from that, I can´t understand why there is always a great fuzz when another "not-so-good" review pops up. If you are a total outsider and lack the fever you had with OFP and play Arma for the first time, I can understand that the rating is a bit down the river. Potential alone doesn´t make a good computergame and if testers have to tune their system and fiddle around with settings like it is with Arma before you can get a decent result, I can understand that there is no big "Hooray!" coming up in the reviews. If BIS would be worried about every poopoo review from a poopoo website they could stoop already. Major magazines and portals are deciding and for now they rank pretty fair for what Arma offers at this point. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MisterXY 0 Posted May 25, 2007 Boring old reality hahaha What a bunch of stupid fags. Realistic game play is the key for heart-stopping firefights... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Heatseeker 0 Posted May 25, 2007 there is one very sad things about reviews of popular and long lifetime games and that are no 're-reviews' after game being updates with patches and new content ...i can understood this for printed magazines ... but today in world full of e-zines it should be easy (many major printed magazines got theirs 'lite' or 'full' e-zine version) it only shows that quality of press is still lagging behind evolution of E industry ofc there are some exceptions and i always get respect for reviewer who takes his time to re-review game after some time with latest patches/bonus content etc. Om the contrary, it shows that reviewers wish to uphold the consumer standards that publishers prefer to let slip. That they are firmly on the side of the customer, and not lapdogs to the people who pay to advertise with them. On no account should games be reviewed after patching. They should be patched before publishing. People who condone post release patching are ruining PC gaming for the rest of us. If you accept low production values and pay for them, a new standard is set. You dont understand the current PC game situation. Low production values... your post could translate to: "if you dont have enough money and time to create the perfect game dont do anything at all!" You forget that not every developer is backed up by large corporation $$'s and even those who do end up messing up due to time constraints. You should be gratefull that this game is this well supported, other developers would have abandoned it and moved on to the next project, most do.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dwarden 1124 Posted May 25, 2007 Om the contrary, it shows that reviewers wish to uphold the consumer standards that publishers prefer to let slip.That they are firmly on the side of the customer, and not lapdogs to the people who pay to advertise with them. On  no account should games be reviewed after patching. They should be patched before publishing. People who condone post release patching are ruining PC gaming for the rest of us. If you accept low production values and pay for them, a new standard is set. You missed the point , i do not support release of over bugged games but IF You trying to suggest that NO patching should happen at all (aka no improvements based on feedback, no additional content etc) ... today most of games are way complex than in 80s or 90s where patching was NOT possible ... ofcourse IF developers try use todays chance to patch online as excuse for LAME work, it's bad ... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
INNOCENT&CLUELESS 0 Posted May 25, 2007 Hehe, now we are again at a point where most threads ending up, but one exception: this time it wasn`t me If BI would come up with an own version control management allowing automatic upgrading with minor user interaction like steam and the ability to start even let`s say the last 10 versions (depending on disk space) they could at least gain the golden support medal. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Spokesperson 0 Posted May 25, 2007 Well, I don't think there's ArmA advertising at 1up. Games they don't advertise get low scores. If they get loads of income from advertising, how would they else dare rate it like that. I forgot the name of the movie you got in the sig psycosmos. Which one is it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
