Polarized opinions about Armed Assault

[matt714 2]

As far that I am concerned, this seems in the right section. However I advise any moderator to move it if is not.

I have recently reinstalled Operation Flashpoint after a few months of computer gaming inactivity and fortunately I still consider it one of the most polished things that has ever sat on my HDD after all those years. This is mostly due to the determination of the modding community that has given it countless additional hours of replay value.

Considering that Armed Assault was released two or three months ago in North America, I was wondering if it was worth to purchase OFP's spiritual successor. However I don't know if it is my perception of things, but the community's opinion about it seems polarized. The fact that an official topic was created because of the overwhelming complaints is far from a good thing in my opinion, nor the fact that the latter actually seems more popular considering it has 32 more pages than the one that encompasses positive criticism.

Basically, should I get it as soon than possible or wait for a while because it is supposedly rigged bugs like its predecessor originally was ? Are there an equivalent number of mod projects around ?

[Lamont 0]

Let just put it this way, there are more bugs in it than in Amazon.

[MehMan 0]

Here's the deal: the game has it's bugs, but they are getting fixed with patches. The game working properly on your computer is a bit of gamble, as it works flawlessly on some, with huge problems on others. The game isn't flawless, but if you get to enjoy it you'll love it if you liked flashpoint. There are some issues here and there that will most likely be address in a future patch, but besides that the game is pretty good.

[Cannon Fodder 0]

I too had similar doubts until recently - I've come in at 1.08 and as far as I am concerned, the game is perfectly playable and I have been enjoying myself very much in the multiplayer side of things, while dabbling in the campaign and single missions.

In terms of bugs etc., it could mostly likely do with further polishing. Mods are still relatively thin on the ground (until the much vaunted tools are released) but there's enough out there to warrant a purchase.

If I were you, this seems like an ideal time to come in on ArmA. It is in infinitely better shape than it was in it's original releases and still has much to come from both BIS and the fanbase. It's a great game, the improvements over OFP might not be huge but they're important enough to make it feel different, and the graphics can be jaw dropppingly gorgeous.

It gets my recommendation.

[DeltaOmega553 0]

There are bugs in it, yes, but in my opinion it will never be what OFP was. OFP was king and still is king of military sims.

ArmA feels too "arcade-like" in the single player campaign. Despite the devs honest attempt at linking missions together, it feels completely disjointed and does not flow at all. They've watered it down in that respect and also took out a lot of vehicles that were present in OFP like the T-80, Bradley, MI-24, other versions of the BMP, etc.

You may want to get it and play it to experience it for yourself; however, don't expect this to be equal to or better than what OFP was back during its prime.

[franze 196]

ArmA, more than anything, expands on the possibilities for addons and mods. The basic content is merely average; it's the hidden parts that make it exciting.

When the mod community hits high gear, that will be the time to have ArmA.

Also, let's keep in mind that FP, when it was first released, was just as buggy - if not more - than ArmA.

[froggyluv 2136]

Some people complain because it can be a beast to get it running stable and those gripes are legitimate. Some complain to hopefully get BIS to notice glaring bugs and fix them. others do because the gameplay feels different than OFP, such as more 'weightiness' to the guns etc... but that is all a matter of preference. Then you have those that complain for mere sport...

Having gotten it pretty damn stable, and heavily modded I don't even recogize the game i'm playing now compared to that demo- it's pure fun.And yes, WGL(ACE),SLX,COC and others all have goodies in the works

[Dallas 9]

After 43 pages of repetetive complaining BIS has allowed people to speak their piece. BIS has allowed people to utter their utter contempt and now BIS must lock and unstickie this thread and help people move on.

Basically if you liked OFP despite it's original state you have to buy ArmA too. You have to be able to keep an open mind and remember what BIS sells in OFP and now ArmA. An engine, an open platform, something the community will expand and explore. Some people think they buy a finished game for their Playstation, who demands a complete game from the shelves. This attitude will draw you towards the disappointment thread, it'll refuse ArmA the potential, OFP had and where given.

Cough up those $50 and help us secure ArmA, becomming everything OFP is and more.  

[fasad 1]

I just had a quick go of OFP again after playing only ArmA since ~March. All in all, they are the same game. To give you some idea of the comparison :

IMO, Key differences (between vanilla versions) are :

ARMA BETTER:

-ArmA looks better (except for the low LOD no texture issues)

-ArmA sounds better (except for voices)

-ArmA runs better (higher FPS in comparable situations, apparently less CPU load per unit)

-ArmA has better AI (much more capable, esp. in close quarters. They are more comparable to a human in combat, but obviously still dumber)

-ArmA has less accurate weapons for the player (more deflection, more apparent bullet drop. I think this is generally good, but overdone for some weapons. OFP feels like lasers.)

-ArmA has more believable "weapon inertia" (feels a lot less like point and click, feels better IMO, although I have never touched a real gun.)

-ArmA has much better helicopter flight model (much less arcadish)

-ArmA has a better island (although very unlikely. Higher object density)

-ArmA has better collision detection (although AI still sometimes walk through anything)

-ArmA has more control options (leaning, rolling etc)

-ArmA is still being developed!!!

ArmA WORSE:

-ArmA has much less balanced weapons and equipment (in OFP, east and west were balanced. In ArmA, west has a big advantage)

-ArmA has worse weapon management (picking up a weapon in OFP was easier, except for ammo boxes)

-ArmA AI inconsistent (sometimes spot you at 500m, sometimes at 5m. They are only average shots compared to human, but have a rate of precise fire that is completely impossible for a human player)

-ArmA has worse radio voices (better sampling quality, poor voice acting and robotic sounding stitching).

-ArmA has slower unit animations (feels more clunky to control)

-ArmA has a much worse setting and design (camouflage and environment of default game means balanced fight is impossible. Uninspiring plot.)

-ArmA has some human vs AI balance issues, especially in heavy ground clutter + vegetation (heavy vegetation makes AI more relatively deadly)

-ArmA has less stable performance (desert = 80fps, look at one tree up close = 15 fps)

-ArmA forests are less dense (although made up of real individual vegetation objects)

-ArmA does not yet have complete mod tool suite.

-ArmA still has very annoying bugs that affect almost every game session (eg, LOD bug, MP parachute bug, MP last slot in vehicle bug, vehicle physics bugs).

Buy the game and have a go! I cannot see how playing the game now may reduce your final impression of the game.

[Guest Ti0n3r]

Quote[/b] ]ArmA has much less balanced weapons and equipment (in OFP, east and west were balanced. In ArmA, west has a big advantage)

West and East in OFP were pretty much exact copies of each other except for a very small amount of APC's and choppers. Something I really hated from the start (together with the TOTAL lack of weapon realism in OFP)

But I do agree, ArmA ís a bit too unbalanced. OPFOR could at least use more infantry weapons and gadgets.

[xxbbcc 6]

-ArmA has better AI (much more capable, esp. in close quarters. They are more comparable to a human in combat, but obviously still dumber)

Friendly AI is next to worthless - it's actually more of a hindrance than anything else right now. They were not a whole lot better in OFP, but at least they didn't get stuck on pretty much everything (including empty space.)

-ArmA has better collision detection (although AI still sometimes walk through anything)

I've yet to see a mission without AI soldiers walking through pretty much anything. I also got shot several times through concrete/brick buildings, even in 1.08.

You can give ArmA a try, but be prepared for a potentially very frustrating experience. As I wrote in the disappointment thread, I cannot get myself anymore to play ArmA, I just went back to OFP. Maybe if the problems will be fixed in next few years, I'll give it another try.

[Scrub 0]

Quote[/b] ]-ArmA forests are less dense (although made up of real individual vegetation objects)

What is your shader set at? Set it on highest setting (if you have a top of the line comp) and you'll have a jungle.

[Guest Ti0n3r]

@xxbbcc

Friendly AI is far from worthless. You either suck at leading or play missions where the designer didn't think twice before deciding on the skill level of friendly AI.

[Major Fubar 0]

Hi - the pros and cons of ArmA are discussed in quite some details in these two threads:

ArmA is just...awesome!

ArmA is just...disappointing!