Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
AgentJonathan

I have recently played it! And it was

Recommended Posts

I came simply to say that, yes, I seriously want this game now, and was wondering if turning graphics on very low will make it playable on my computer.

to give you a hint on what graphics card i have, flashpoint: resistance is choppy on high.

THCs... smile_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]...and was wondering if turning graphics on very low will make it playable on my computer.

to give you a hint on what graphics card i have, flashpoint: resistance is choppy on high

You need to re-think this whole approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No matter how low you set it, if support for Shadermodel 2.0 and other things is missing on the card then it just won't work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry. What I meant, is if I buy it, I want to know if it will actually work...

When I play OFP, I set my graphics to high, it gets kinda choppy... All I wanted to know is if ArmA will work on my crappy graphic card, or if I have to buy one first... THX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NO it wont work.

Its not rocket science. If it wont run a game from like 6 years ago very well, then you need a new card. This game is much more demanding than OFP was.

If you need a new card, you need a new CPU...motherboard

...ram

etc etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OFP gets choppy even on your latest "cutting edge" graphics cards when set to high visuals. That's just the way OFP is...

I use my AGP x 8 , ATI 9500 Radeon 128 MB with everything set to low and Arma works fine...That is untill extended time of play afterwards weird polygonal dysformations start occuring. crazy_o.gifcrazy_o.gifcrazy_o.gifcrazy_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a P41.8 (single core), 1 gig of RAM, 9600XT card, and everything on low including the view distance. Not too playable at all. Way too choppy. I forced myself to upgrade to a new rig cause I love this game so much. Just like I did for OFP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why dont you simply say what your rig is ?? huh.gif That would make things much easier.

I have an xp2000+ - 1 gb ram - radeon 9600pro - raid0 system and it is a shame biggrin_o.gif

you better let it be if your system is comparable to mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know what I am about to say is blasphemy to some... but in my opinion, the graphics are a vital part of the ArmA experience. Sahrani becomes such a believable world when all graphical options are set to high. It's amazing. Strolling through the forest feels incredibly real. Standing on top of the highest mountain with view distance set to 10k... Well... that's just incomparable.

Ever since I got the game I haven't actually played any of the missions. I just went hiking. That aspect alone makes the game a winner in my book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bought an entirely new computer for the game. I don't regret it. I also bought a sweet 19' samsung wide-screen monitor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite its loading screens and a few bugs, I find S.T.A.L.K.E.R. much more believable and realistic (scene wise). I think the plants feel much more alive and the structures themselves just look much better.

The polygon count on ArmA's structures just cannot compete with S.T.A.L.K.E.R.'s. The characters themselves are just that much more "alive" and realistic. It's amazing to me to watch characters in the game sleeping, eating, and playing a guitar to relax.

I understand that the scope of the landscape is not comparable... but really, that's about the only thing that ArmA has... the landscape size, that's it.

Those of you that have tried ArmA, should really give S.T.A.L.K.E.R. a try.

Not trying to rain on anyone's parade, just trying to give another gamer's opinion to evaluate or try out alternatives...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw a very cheap PCI-E 6600GT at newegg for $30 with $40 MIR at tigerdirect.com

I use a 6600GT with 1 gig of RAM and an Athlon64 3000+, and I can run Armed Assault on mostly lowish settings, textures on medium, shawdows high, view distance 900, 1024x768. While I would suggest something better, if this is all you can afford, it works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peeps play mil combat games like FP or ArmA for reasons other than poly count etc etc etc. STALKER imho blew freaking monkies. What a waste of a cool game idea. But if some peeps dig STALKER, all the power to em. I deleted it after 2 days of trying to find any redeeming qualities in my eyes.

ArmA however??? I love it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not trying to rain on anyone's parade, just trying to give another gamer's opinion to evaluate or try out alternatives...

If you had read the stalker tread in offtopic then you would have known that alot of ArmA fans like the athmosphere in stalker, yet you cannot possible have large scale combined arms operations like in ArmA.

The games are very different and have different goals, you cant directly compare them like this. smile_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have two 7950GTs in SLI and I run ArmA at higher settings than Flashpoint with less problems...no joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Despite its loading screens and a few bugs, I find S.T.A.L.K.E.R. much more believable and realistic (scene wise). I think the plants feel much more alive and the structures themselves just look much better.

The polygon count on ArmA's structures just cannot compete with S.T.A.L.K.E.R.'s. The characters themselves are just that much more "alive" and realistic. It's amazing to me to watch characters in the game sleeping, eating, and playing a guitar to relax.

I understand that the scope of the landscape is not comparable... but really, that's about the only thing that ArmA has... the landscape size, that's it.

Those of you that have tried ArmA, should really give S.T.A.L.K.E.R. a try.

Not trying to rain on anyone's parade, just trying to give another gamer's opinion to evaluate or try out alternatives...

and i think thats what i need, a bigass map which i could go anywhere i want, fly around it, drive around it, walk around it, or just sit there and watching the beautiful sunset, freedom is the key word

S.T.A.L.K.E.R., i love this game for it sence of fallout aftermate, but the more i look into the game the more i find it a little bit strange.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have two 7950GTs in SLI and I run ArmA at higher settings than Flashpoint with less problems...no joke.

I couldn't even run my old Flashpoint at all... After installation I saw the starting screen, it would run for about 5 minutes in game during the "bootcamp" at the start, and it would then crash to desktop. I just maxed OFP's settings (don't see why they wouldn't work on my system) and was expecting to get my game on... nope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have two 7950GTs in SLI and I run ArmA at higher settings than Flashpoint with less problems...no joke.

I couldn't even run my old Flashpoint at all... After installation I saw the starting screen, it would run for about 5 minutes in game during the "bootcamp" at the start, and it would then crash to desktop. I just maxed OFP's settings (don't see why they wouldn't work on my system) and was expecting to get my game on... nope.

it work for someone, other didnt, totally based on luck, for ArmA case, you can wish BI to improve this, but no one could say its 100% sure(besides more of a driver issus, or you could try nHancer?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got ARMA to run with only onboard video. think it was a 128 Nvidia virtual card on a Dell Inspiron (or GX)

Not well mind you but I was able to load Sahrani and play at 10 FPS or so. Ramadi was better with fog all the way up. It was just a test mode and the mouse pointer didnt work in the GUI! Now Im upgraded so that install is left behind. I was suprised to get the game running in that HW after all I had read around here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Despite its loading screens and a few bugs, I find S.T.A.L.K.E.R. much more believable and realistic (scene wise). I think the plants feel much more alive and the structures themselves just look much better.

The polygon count on ArmA's structures just cannot compete with S.T.A.L.K.E.R.'s. The characters themselves are just that much more "alive" and realistic. It's amazing to me to watch characters in the game sleeping, eating, and playing a guitar to relax.

I understand that the scope of the landscape is not comparable... but really, that's about the only thing that ArmA has... the landscape size, that's it.

Those of you that have tried ArmA, should really give S.T.A.L.K.E.R. a try.

Not trying to rain on anyone's parade, just trying to give another gamer's opinion to evaluate or try out alternatives...

While I loved S.T.A.L.K.E.R to bits, I cannot agree with you. Certainly, the place was much more alive "out of the box" (yes, I loved the rookie Stalkers playing guitar and the oversized cigarettes strewn across the place smile_o.gif ) but the lack of scale certainly limited the immersion. Nothing kill believability more than a clichéd "vertical wall" to indicate the limits of a level. S.T.A.L.K.E.R had plenty of those, alas. The railroading was just too obvious.

ArmA has depth of field, an enormous island, flora, fauna, realistic day/night cycles (where nights are actually dark, unlike in S.T.A.L.K.E.R), high tide, low tide, urban areas, rural areas, mountains, beaches... It's a mini-world. That's what I love about the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×