Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
W0lle

ArmA is just ... disappointing

Recommended Posts

I love sequal syndrome LOL!

Everyone who played the original wants it to be EXACTLY the same with just better graphics. Those who didn't play the original don't see what the big deal is.

I've been online gaming since 1995. Sequal Syndrome took it's toll between Unreal 1 and the first Unreal Tournament (yes, I thought UT sucked). It took it's toll between Warcraft and Starcraft. It took it's toll on Starsige:Tribes when Tribes 2 was released, but I was one of those who though T2 was better.

In the end, people hate change. They don't like to adjust or have to start over.

To those of you complaining how so much changed from OFP that it sucks - go play OFP. This is not OFP. If it was, they would have called it OFP2. It's ArmA. It's a good game, with alot of potential that's getting wasted due to Sequal Syndrome and player vs AI CoOp missions. I played OFP and, honestly, the vehicles in OFP were easier to operate because the physics were alot less realistic. ArmA's physics are far from mirroring reality, but they're closer than OFP.

For the record, AI in an FPS will never react the way it should. A computer is not human and never will be. For one AI to react the same way a human would, it would take too much processing power and lower the perfomance of the game even further.

If anyone here thinks they can do better, get your programming degree and write a better game. Until then, play what's given to you and marvel at the fact that this game started off with and idea and one line of code......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

99% agree with you -Total-. Hope some will start to see it as 'we' do. It still doesn't clear why things have changed the way they are now, but in the end i guess we can assume BIS did their best (but adjust where needed...in patches or ArmA2). It will never be like you want it, often dev. time simply doesn't allow it and if it would be possible it would simply won't be able to run on these days PCs i guess.

PS: the 1% is for the OFP2 thingy. That was just impossible....but remembering all the fuss about a d**m title of a game, it all makes sense why some peolpe are quickly dissapointed wink_o.gif .

@Zadoff1880, regarding your military contract and making BIS bills. I didn't want to come back to it as i find it is showing very disrespective throughwords BIS. We don't need to make their bills. By the way, without going to deep into it and making myself a fool, point your finguer at BIA,as they handle the military contracts afaik. BIS only gives them the license to alter the engine and support them with those modifications. Again don't want to make the bill, but like said, i think BIS isn't grabbing the biggest pie with that part.

Anyway, enough of me inhere. I know the mods already don't like the topic (can you blame them, witch gameforum would tollerate this kind of topic and the stuff getting thrown at them). I don't want to do more damage...

Change or take the highway would be my last words.

Have a nice (negative) time while the rest makes the best of it yay.gif .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I say we boycott ArmA2 and stick with ArmA1 since we all have improved it and are still working hard on more addons for ArmA1. We can just buy OFP2. I dont remmeber but I think i stated this earlier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If ArmA2 advances the gameplay, then why wouldn't I buy it?

Has the successfully industry brainwashed everyone into thinking that graphics is the only thing that needs to grow and change?

If a sequel does not make the vets of the original learn how to play it all over again, then what purpose does it serve?

If a new player comes into a server of a new game where there are a majority of veteran players from the previous title - how long will that player stick around when they get annihilated time and time again by players who already know every aspect of the gameplay and physics?

The answer - they won't stay. They will say the game blows, the players cheat, and stick it back on the shelf. The new title will be left with the vets and, as they get bored and stop playing, it will die completely.

Out of the 7 people in my clan who played ArmA, only two of us played OFP. The other 5 liked ArmA. They were amazed at the physics and the depth of the game. None of us were really estatic about playing AI though. It was alright for a bit in a relaxing sort of way, but AI are predictable once you figure out the patterns they have to choose from (that's why it's called AI - it can't create and doesn't have imagination!!wink_o.gif. But AI play got old quick, PvP never materialized, and too many OFP vets kept saying ArmA sucks. So, 5 of the 7 have unsitalled due to the opinions of the vets stinking up the airwaves.

If a game franchise dies - it's usually not the Dev's fault. It's the fault of those who didn't want any change in their beloved game except more eye candy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmmm, so what your saying is that you don't want your computer games to progress? You don't want to play next-generation games? Is that just because you have a low spec computer or that your biased against console gaming without even giving it a try?

Maybe go and have a game of COD4 or Rainbow Six Vegas? You might just change your mind.

a) The technical improvements of Arma over OPF were greater than what you will find betwean COD and COD4. The technology certainly evolved (although not on all levels).

b) I want to play good games being them considered next gen or not. Arma's sheer scale and open endness plus the relation betwean graphical quality and the previously mentioned scale gives it a next gen stamp in my book.

c) I have a really good setup.

d) Im not into arcade shooters (COD) and ravenshield was the last true R6, i'd rather play Arma biggrin_o.gif .

Lets go back on topic before Major Fubar passes out!!

There are disapointing things in Arma, for example the damage model and strange vehicle bugs (i can disable a M113 with a 9mm MP5 clip), there are some technical flaws and not so good design decisions but my point is that Arma is still a unique game in its own genre.

To all:

If you are going to criticise atleast try to be objective and constructive, im tired of reading mindless rants..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well i tried to play Arma with the following setup

Intel E6600 @ 3.0ghz

3gb DDR2 800 @ 850 MHZ

PNY 8800GTS 320MB

I have to say that i can play it but not everyting on high !

And now i have a problem with my Motherboard tounge2.gif

Lets face it , Bis had a good game but lost it ..

Maybe they will bring it back in ARMA 2 ! will see

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmmm, so what your saying is that you don't want your computer games to progress? You don't want to play next-generation games? Is that just because you have a low spec computer or that your biased against console gaming without even giving it a try?

Maybe go and have a game of COD4 or Rainbow Six Vegas? You might just change your mind.

a) The technical improvements of Arma over OPF were greater than what you will find betwean COD and COD4. The technology certainly evolved (although not on all levels).

b) I want to play good games being them considered next gen or not. Arma's sheer scale and open endness plus the relation betwean graphical quality and the previously mentioned scale gives it a next gen stamp in my book.

c) I have a really good setup.

d) Im not into arcade shooters (COD) and ravenshield was the last true R6, i'd rather play Arma biggrin_o.gif .

Lets go back on topic before Major Fubar passes out!!

There are disapointing things in Arma, for example the damage model and strange vehicle bugs (i can disable a M113 with a 9mm MP5 clip), there are some technical flaws and not so good design decisions but my point is that Arma is still a unique game in its own genre.

To all:

If you are going to criticise atleast try to be objective and constructive, im tired of reading mindless rants..

You obviously haven't seen anything of COD4 then. I suggest you go and load up COD and then compare it to COD4 when it comes out next month - the two titles are completely different, both in quality of graphics/gameplay and also where they are set.

I don't see this big jump in graphical quality that you say happened between OFP and ARMA. I don't see an advancement in ai either.

Lets give you a good example. I played the mission where you have to get up a water tower and snipe soldiers as they run away from a convoy of trucks that was just blown up. Those soldiers just ran around in circles, or led on the floor pointing their guns up to the sky. They didn't even respond to where I was.

Now compare that to the intelligence of the soldiers in any of the COD titles. Also, a large scale map does not make up for bad programming. I would rather play with better graphics on a smaller map than in a game that loads the complete map and the graphics have to suffer as a consequence because your processor is having to process the whole map rather than what is in your immediate vicinity.

I'm interested in your comment regarding realism. Why do you think OFP/ARMA is any more realistic than COD? I don't think enemy soldiers running around in circles looking like headless chickens is very realistic - do you? And then theres the terrible radio chatter and bad voice acting. Realistic? I don't think so.

I will get constructive now. Here is a screenshot from the original COD http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/06/CODscreen4.jpg and here is one from the upcoming COD4 http://media.monstersandcritics.com/article....p31.jpg both are ingame shots. Are you still going to say that there hasnt been an advancement from COD to COD 4?

Arma is a unique game in its own genre - so I'm going to compare it to the only other game that I think is similar - Hidden and Dangerous - another game that had too many bugs.

For me, ARMA is a game that if you didnt know any better, could have come out in the late 90's. It looks no different than the technology available then. We don't all want huge empty maps that are only there in case a MOD team wants to make a new town or campaign there - we want a game which has action all across the map.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...we want a game which has action all across the map.

Then you are the kind of person who likes simple console games (you made that pretty obvious). Not everyone is going to enjoy the same stuff as you. I have R6Vegas, and I wish I never wasted the money on it.

Don't bother discussing ArmA's campaign missions, they are crap and most of us realise that. I'll admit that did disappoint me.

Anyway I still haven't seen you attempt to sort out your problems with patches. So you seem to prefer to whine about a problem and leave it instead of getting it sorted out. I'm sorry but that's just being lazy.

No amount of ranting here is going to help you. You don't like the game, then fine. There are plenty of less complicated console games that you can enjoy.

Quote[/b] ]I don't see this big jump in graphical quality that you say happened between OFP and ARMA.

Well then you must be blind. Unless your PC is a piece of crap the difference is very obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...we want a game which has action all across the map.

Then you are the kind of person who likes simple console games (you made that pretty obvious). Not everyone is going to enjoy the same stuff as you. I have R6Vegas, and I wish I never wasted the money on it.

Don't bother discussing ArmA's campaign missions, they are crap and most of us realise that. I'll admit that did disappoint me.

Anyway I still haven't seen you attempt to sort out your problems with patches. So you seem to prefer to whine about a problem and leave it instead of getting it sorted out. I'm sorry but that's just being lazy.

No amount of ranting here is going to help you. You don't like the game, then fine. There are plenty of less complicated console games that you can enjoy.

Quote[/b] ]I don't see this big jump in graphical quality that you say happened between OFP and ARMA.

Well then you must be blind. Unless your PC is a piece of crap the difference is very obvious.

hehe -you just don't read do you? I ran OFP's biggest league until I got bored with all the cheating that came with the game. I also devised the OFP World Cup which saw players from all over the World join together with their fellow countrymen to play in OFPs biggest tournament. It was so popular that even clans from other leagues joined in. So, far from knowing what I'm talking about, I am one of the few people who actually bothered to run a league to keep OFP alive.

And, in case you didn't read it the other two times I mentioned it in this thread - I HAVE RETURNED THE GAME TO THE SHOP AND GOT A REFUND.

Maybe there are still a few players who like ARMA, for all its quirkyness and stuff. But, sales figures speak for themselves, in the same way that publishers do. Lets face it, if ARMA was any good, Codemasters would never have dropped it. And I bet the number of people playing R6V right now outnumber those playing ARMA by a very considerable amount.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hehe -you just don't read do you? I ran OFP's biggest league until I got bored with all the cheating that came with the game. I also devised the OFP World Cup which saw players from all over the World join together with their fellow countrymen to play in OFPs biggest tournament. It was so popular that even clans from other leagues joined in. So, far from knowing what I'm talking about, I am one of the few people who actually bothered to run a league to keep OFP alive.

I know, I read that.

Quote[/b] ]

And, in case you didn't read it the other two times I mentioned it in this thread - I HAVE RETURNED THE GAME TO THE SHOP AND GOT A REFUND.

Exactly. You didn't bother to get the problem sorted out. Your loss.

Quote[/b] ]

Maybe there are still a few players who like ARMA, for all its quirkyness and stuff. But, sales figures speak for themselves, in the same way that publishers do. Lets face it, if ARMA was any good, Codemasters would never have dropped it

It wasn't as successful as OFP, that is obvious. But your Codemasters comment shows that you don't know what really happened. ArmA development only started when BIS split with Codemasters. BIS has had a bigger game in development before ArmA and it is still in development.

Quote[/b] ]And I bet the number of people playing R6V right now outnumber those playing ARMA by a very considerable amount.

I don't care. Simple console action games always sell more. I think R6V sucks, I don't care how many disagree. I like ArmA gameplay more, I enjoy it more than that simple action crap that stole the name of a good realistic game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even PC Gamer took the "Tom Clancy" out of their review of R6V, because the devs of R6V took all the "Tom Clancy" out of R6V lol.

One thing about PC vs Console, don't forget: PC stands for PWNS CONSOLE rofl.gif

<span style='color:darkred'>Two points - from me regarding dissappointment with ArmA lately:</span>

• Performance is so inconsistent that it is almost impossible to guage it accurately - or understand where the problem lies. One day it runs like a champ - the next - it crashes like a crack addict without a rock.

• Basic fixes such as Ai pathfinding, bridge issues etc. ruin the gameplay. And despite the public nature of the bugs - no fixes have been offered by BIS. This is a basic navigation issue that is required in the game and imho - needs to be addressed and fixed immediately.

edit: And I tried the COD4 Demo and I have to say I LOVE one thing about it, it uninstalls really well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You obviously haven't seen anything of COD4 then. I suggest you go and load up COD and then compare it to COD4 when it comes out next month - the two titles are completely different, both in quality of graphics/gameplay and also where they are set.

I tried the COD4 demo, outdated graphics covered up by overdone and unrealistic shadders, very crap looking.

Same COD gameplay, linear, arcade, small, on rails, 100% scripted, no real evolution to be found, sorry.

Quote[/b] ]

I don't see this big jump in graphical quality that you say happened between OFP and ARMA. I don't see an advancement in ai either.

Thats because you couldnt make the game run on your pc or your specs just werent good enough, Arma looks beautyfull in high settings.

The a.i. didnt improve alot but there are improvements to be found, dont forget that theres a mission editor so the a.i. has to be in a editable format.

COD maps dont have enough space to have the bots flank the player and if it happens its scripted... COD's bots wont do anything on their own other than shoot back and respawn, you dont play vs a.i, you play vs scripted sequences with zero randomisation in.

Quote[/b] ]

Also, a large scale map does not make up for bad programming. I would rather play with better graphics on a smaller map than in a game that loads the complete map and the graphics have to suffer as a consequence because your processor is having to process the whole map rather than what is in your immediate vicinity.

Bad programing... Armed Assault is a technical achievement, there are 900 000 + objects in Sahrani wow_o.gif .

The freedom of movement, exploration, real time huge battles, open endness are core features and the reason many people like BIS games.

I play Armed Assault with both outstanding graphics and huge, detailed maps and i like it, the way you keep bringing the graphics up makes me think you want to pass on as a graphics whore (but with very low standards it seems).

My processor isnt processing anything it cant handle since Arma uses terrain/data streaming.

Quote[/b] ]

We don't all want huge empty maps that are only there in case a MOD team wants to make a new town or campaign there - we want a game which has action all across the map.

If you dont want huge battlefields dont play Arma. I want action all across the map but i want a map that is larger than a alley.

So please... its perfectly acceptable to have people sharing opinions and discussing things they found disapointing in Arma but dont make silly comparisons betwean Arma and small, mainstream arcade shooter games, thats not the direction OPF/Arma fans want the series to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is for people who want to whine about the game. I really have to laugh at people who don't like whiners then still come into the thread and read the posts. Reminds me of the old washer woman who cannot keep her nose out crazy_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Call of Duty 3 had big maps and enemies that were intelligent and acted realistically. You reckon that COD4 graphics are outdated? What would you call ARMA's graphics then?

I have more than adequate specs to run ARMA thanks very much - a 3.2g processor, 2 gigs of memory and a Geforce 6 video card. The same thing happened with OFP too, apparently it was supposed to run on a Pentium 500mhz. The way ARMA is programmed just eats up memory.

Freedom of movement? Oh you mean the part where you can be a sniper and shoot randomly at 20 enemies who wont even fire a single shot back, but will run around in circles pointing their guns into the air? Or are you talking about the part where its a night mission and you have to blow up tanks. 2 seconds after you fire your rocket launcher you get sniped - despite being up in cover on a hill sitting on your stomach? Realistic? not.

Maybe the reason you like ARMA so much is because you can just snipe from miles away? Maybe your not good enough in a fire fight at close quarters?

I always thought PC stood for 'pretty crap'?

Why should gaming be that much of a pain in the ass?

But each to their own. You guys carry on waiting for your unfinished game to be patched up and Ill continue to play games that are finished with many thousands of other happy XBox 360 players who have made the switch from the PC because the PC is not a games machine, but a word processor which people decided to modify.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like arma, but theres lots of disappointing things, even if not counting bugs..

Small arms miss some little things.. like having 31 rounds to fire after reloading before running out of rounds on the first mag... even raven shield modeled this smile_o.gif

Animations are a bit disappointing too..

finger doesnt really touch the trigger on some weapons, (Americas army has this done well)

trigger doesnt move,

(Americas army has this done well)

firemode selector doesnt move,

(Americas army has this done well)

changing magazine is basically same as in ofp - character just does this little magic thing with hes hand and bang you have new magazine without him even touching the mag, hes pocket nor loading the weapon smile_o.gif

(Americas army has this done well)

empty mags go POOF

(SWAT4 has this done well)

cant reload while walking

(all shooters have this well)

cases dont appear and pile up on the ground

(all shooters have this well)

units magically teleport into vehicles without even touching them or opening the door first..

(americas army has this well)

no interiors modeled in tanks..

(ofp1 had this modeled well)

Driving and flying cant be even remotely called realistic, even needforspeed has better driving model and even 10 years old redbaron has better flying physics..

scenery doesnt get beaten up: no craters from bombs..

no bullet holes, and i mean HOLES not just some textures that are slammed on the surface, wich are also disappointing, only 50 holes or so max :S

(swat3 also used textures but it had the penetration values etc VERY WELL)

i could write stuff like this for 5 pages but i think you get the point smile_o.gif Even its good game and onlyone of its kind, its still FAR away from realistic!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comparing the driving in ArmA to a 100% dedicated driving game is a little bit of a joke to be fair lol. Surely the simple fact that you CAN do all those things in the same game makes it better than most. You have the choice.

Oh and Marshal, how is getting shot at after firing an AT weapon at night (which makes a BIG flash that isn't exactly hard to notice) then getting killed related to vast open maps?

The "AI" in COD games is scripted, all cover points are hard coded into the maps, all paths are scripted. I played the COD 4 demo and it's not all that impressive in my opinion. The AI seems to like running off and leaving you, which I don't remember it doing in the older COD games (I never played 3 so no idea there). It's just the same game play as all the other COD games but with shinier graphics and a different time setting. Also I'm not too keen on the sounds, they seem too... laser like, as though it's soms space shooter (I mean ambient shooting and stuff, your own weapons seem fine). ArmA's default sounds aren' t the best but at least they're somewhat realistic. Remember not all weapons make a huge beefy boooooom sound when fired, most are like fire crackers and sound pretty weak.

Oh and ArmA has penetration modelled in, and it's quite accurate too. Also cases don't "pile up" because of performance. If they did it'd use more system resources and then people would moan even more about their PC not being able to handle it. Oh and Marshal, the GeForce 6 is considered "minimum" specs now, according to the QG box (they upped them because people with MX cards and so on were whining saying they didn't get uber frames).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The case I made about being sniped while using a rocket launcher proved that the game is unrealistic because there is no way that a trained sniper could spot you on a hill, in total darkness within 2 seconds and make a kill shot. Especially when that sniper was just walking around the base camp at the time and not even looking through his sights.

Fair enough, the rocket launcher would have made a light flash as it left the launcher, but that would have been a split second and the human eye does not have the capability to exactly pinpoint a person who is lying down in undergrowth on a hill that is perhaps a quarter of a mile away, within 2 seconds flat.

I'm wondering why a Geforce 6 would be a minimum requirement when it runs games such as Bioshock absolutely fine?

There are lots of little graphical errors in this game. Like trees changing shape as you approach them or other features coming and going, all depending what position they are on the screen as you pan across it. Even one of the little intro videos at the start of the first missions has errors in it and shows green blocks that eventually turn into trees as the camera pans across a small town.

This stupid radio chatter with broken up pigeon english was one of the first things I noticed in the XBox version of OFP. And it still hasnt been fixed. It surprises me that there are still so many faults with this game when the engine is 6 years old. You can say whatever you want about the COD series, at least it has moved forward in leaps and bounds, and whether the enemy is scripted or not, at least the fire back rather than run around with guns pointed in the air.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Comparing the driving in ArmA to a 100% dedicated driving game is a little bit of a joke to be fair lol. Surely the simple fact that you CAN do all those things in the same game makes it better than most. You have the choice.

Most needforspeed games up to date are not dedicated to driving, to be honest their driving model is pathetic joke compared to real driving sims, NFS is dedicated to rap "music" and "cool" tuning. But well, driving cars in arma avoiding ostacles is almost like steering a pacman avoiding the evil ghosts.

Being "better" as game (wich i agree 100%) doesnt make it any more realistic. tho.

Tell you a fact, arma propably the most arcadish driving and flying model of all "war games" in 2007.

Thats why i keep to playing as infantry, wich its very good at!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm wondering why a Geforce 6 would be a minimum requirement when it runs games such as Bioshock absolutely fine?

Geforce 6 (Which one BTW, 6600GT, 6600, 6800)? Is pretty old now. You can't run ArmA on high settings with that.

Of course it runs Bioshock fine, the most you ever see is a single room tounge2.gif

Anyway, you don't even have ArmA now. So enjoy your arcade shooter games.

And if you're such a console fan, why buy the PC version of Bioshock on a PC with a Geforce 6? crazy_o.gif

Quote[/b] ]This thread is for people who want to whine about the game. I really have to laugh at people who don't like whiners then still come into the thread and read the posts.

Well what is the point of posting on a forum if you don't want people to reply to you? Do you like telling people stuff and having them ignore you? It's a FORUM!

Anyway, enough wasting my time with this thread. I have better things to do than talk to people who want to be ignored and who are full of crap tounge2.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are lots of little graphical errors in this game. Like trees changing shape as you approach them or other features coming and going, all depending what position they are on the screen as you pan across it.

I have to admit that this really annoys me. When i'm looking through my sight for enemy movement i get distracted by bushes and trees changing shapes because i zoom in and out.

Comparing the driving in ArmA to a 100% dedicated driving game is a little bit of a joke to be fair lol. Surely the simple fact that you CAN do all those things in the same game makes it better than most. You have the choice.

I would much rather have fewer choices done very well instead of what we have in Arma, which is a lot of choices (driving, flying etc) done pretty poorly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm wondering why a Geforce 6 would be a minimum requirement when it runs games such as Bioshock absolutely fine?

Geforce 6 (Which one BTW, 6600GT, 6600, 6800)? Is pretty old now. You can't run ArmA on high settings with that.

Of course it runs Bioshock fine, the most you ever see is a single room tounge2.gif

Anyway, you don't even have ArmA now. So enjoy your arcade shooter games.

And if you're such a console fan, why buy the PC version of Bioshock on a PC with a Geforce 6? crazy_o.gif

Quote[/b] ]This thread is for people who want to whine about the game. I really have to laugh at people who don't like whiners then still come into the thread and read the posts.

Well what is the point of posting on a forum if you don't want people to reply to you? Do you like telling people stuff and having them ignore you? It's a FORUM!

Anyway, enough wasting my time with this thread. I have better things to do than talk to people who want to be ignored and who are full of crap tounge2.gif

Who said I bought Bioshock? Just cos I got it doesnt mean I bought it and for your information, I completed it for the 360 too.

Hmm, full of crap? or is it that the truth hurts?

You can keep your boring wide open spaces, soldiers who run around not knowing what to do and your wait for endless months whilst BIS releases a patch to fix all these faults (and from experience, most of the stuff wont be fixed anyway). You can also keep all the cheaters who like to play this game and who spoilt OFP with their God modes and dropping tanks onto multiplayer maps.

There are far better army simulations than this that absolutely wipes ARMA's ass - Americas Army for one, which I am downloading right now and which is FREE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmm, full of crap? or is it that the truth hurts?

You can keep your boring wide open spaces, soldiers who run around not knowing what to do and your wait for endless months whilst BIS releases a patch to fix all these faults (and from experience, most of the stuff wont be fixed anyway). You can also keep all the cheaters who like to play this game and who spoilt OFP with their God modes and dropping tanks onto multiplayer maps.

There are far better army simulations than this that absolutely wipes ARMA's ass - Americas Army for one, which I am downloading right now and which is FREE.

Given the above quote - I think the creation of this thread is pure genius.

[2nd]Double-Tap / [CPL]D0UBLE-TAP in Americas Army. I used to hit the hill at Insurgency and tear into that building with a SAW - grenade the front door and tear em to pieces. When you hear the SAW - you knew D0UBLE-TAP was comin for ya.

That said - any map in AA is what? two city blocks MAX?  icon_rolleyes.gif No driveable vehicles, no helis. You can't even get a heli insertion...that's no sim.  As for Armed Assault and our boring wide-open spaces and 'not knowing' what to do - we know what to do. We've been doing it for the last 10 months. I think, you just can't follow. There lies the problem.

I've put in my ¢2 on why Arma is dissapointing, but your comments are just...inflammatory haha. I've spent close to $2,000 CDN on my computer for Armed Assault, while others can't be bothered to spent a couple hundred? Then they blame the game for sucking when they haven't downloaded/attempted to fix anything?

I find it disappointing that the title has its quirks and there are concrete fixes yet. But that's the extent of my disappointment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]Then they blame the game for sucking when they haven't downloaded/attempted to fix anything?

When people buy a game they expect it to work, or atleast have patches to make the game work. If their computers are above what it says on teh box thenw hy should they have to buy a new computer just so they can play the game?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]Then they blame the game for sucking when they haven't downloaded/attempted to fix anything?

When people buy a game they expect it to work, or atleast have patches to make the game work. If their computers are above what it says on teh box thenw hy should they have to buy a new computer just so they can play the game?

I'm not saying it's right, and in a perfect world...but both of us know that's not the case and the practice of looking at the minimum requirements has always yielded less than desireable results. In that department, BIS falls perfectly inline with industry. It's the other stuff that we can genuinely gripe about.

wink_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×