Cod4, why not arma

[croc4 0]

I picked this up this weekend, and boy does it look good, and after seeing some of the landscape, buildings etc, I can't help but ask why can't Arma look as good without needing a beefy system. Sure the maps are not as large, but I don't care if I can see 5 miles away, I'm more concerned with the AI shooting at me from 100 meters away. There has to be something that can be done to make it run better than it does now, even the AI seems pretty good, they take cover, and even try flanking you.

even if it is scripted, I don't care, it has the illusion of being real and thats all that really matters since they are both just games

(I laugh at the "simulation" tag people use) And the firefights, I find them far more intense than arma.

I'm sure the fan buys will snub there noses at it, I have not tried multiplayer, been too busy with the single player campain, which is

well done. Again why couldn't arma be as polished?

My point?, it just seems that Arma needs a lot of polish, hope fully Arma2 will be of higher quality without the need for a cray to run it on.

[NeMeSiS 11]

I picked this up this weekend, and boy does it look good, and after seeing some of the landscape, buildings etc, I can't help but ask why can't Arma look as good without needing a beefy system. Sure the maps are not as large, but I don't care if I can see 5 miles away, I'm  more concerned with the AI shooting at me from 100 meters away. There has to be something that can be done to make it run better than it does now, even the AI seems pretty good, they take cover, and even try flanking you.

even if it is scripted, I don't care, it has the illusion of being real and thats all that really matters since they are both just games

(I laugh at the "simulation" tag people use) And the firefights, I find them far more intense than arma.

I'm sure the fan buys will snub there noses at it, I have not tried multiplayer, been too busy with the single player campain, which is

well done. Again why couldn't arma be as polished?

My point?, it just seems that Arma needs a lot of polish, hope fully Arma2 will be of higher quality without the need for a cray to run it on.

You cannot have the movie-like CoD4 experience in a totally unlinear game. CoD4 relies on (very well done) timed effects which just 'happen' as the player walks by to increase the immersiveness. OFP/ArmA is the complete opposite, a lot will happen, its just not predefined how, when, where, and the player doesnt need to be there for it to happen.

Thats also why CoD4 gives that excellent rush when you first play through it, but lacks replayability while OFP/ArmA usually dont blow you off your chair but you can keep replaying it without it getting old very fast*.

*(Except if you didnt like it the first time you played it, then you will keep hating it, at least the experience is consistent... )

[mattxr 9]

Maybe becuase Arma is a simulation and Cod4 is a FPS shooter....

If you had Armas view distances on cod4 it would need 2 super computers to run it, like what the military seciensts use.

[BraTTy 0]

I comment 4in1 which stated it "makes you feel like a hero"

Which is a good description

This topic belongs in off-topic so you can discuss other slightly similiar games

In the meantime read my top post here:

http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....;st=270

I'm biting my tounge on further discussion

[NoRailgunner 0]

Don't care about offtopic forum with an extra CoD-thread!

Don't care about suggestions threads for ArmA and ArmA2!

...

[Heatseeker 0]

I remember reading an article about eastern european developers, delivering more original titles and technical inovation.. for less, much less.

COD4 probably had a gigantic budget and a large team of developers, regardless its still another corridor shooter (a very short one it seems). Pretty? I didnt think it was, shiny perhaps but i didnt find it pretty.. it looked just like an average console game.

You can blame Arma's performance on its rushed release or lack of optimisation, maybe even some wrong development decisions but there is no way you can compare the amount of world detail and draw distance betwean these two games.

Its not hard to find how corridor FPS's are optimised, you just have to enable a fly or ghost cheat and you will come across "portals", when you fly in Arma all is there.

There are changes BIS could have done to make Arma run better (Kegetys lowplants comes to mind) but in a detail/performance ratio i think Arma is even better/smoother than Crysis.

Arma is 1 year+ old and still has high value, in a year i doubt you will be playing COD4 .

p.s.

I predict a lock coming anyway... .

[bigshot 64]

They are 2 totally different styles of games.

COD4 is a cinematic game that is best suited for the sheer adrenaline rush that comes from expecting to either win or lose a match. It's a frag-fest type game where only the effects and outcome of a battle mean anything. NO replayability with AI, play it once and chuck it out unless youre into spawn/die spawn/die every 20 seconds playing against other human players on small overcrowded maps. Its a static environment as far as AI is concerned.

Arma is for thinkers/tinkers where the experience of how you play the game is more important than the actual outcome. No cinematics, no frills, nothing fancy...but it can be replayed many times over and over again and still give a slightly different outcome each time according to the actions you take...its a dynamic environment.

If Arma seems unpolished compared to other better looking games its only because it is so much more powerful than any other game out there. it is basically a shell for mission developers. It is so dynamic and there are so many commands available to mission developers that almost anything can be done with it as compared to other games.

Arma wouldnt be able to run well enough on our machines if it had the graphics and effects of COD4 because Arma has alot going on thats being processed behind the scenes with the AI...dynamic AI, triggers and scripting events means huge processing resources are already being used. Put cinematics and cutting edge graphics ontop of that and you wouldnt be able to run it on todays hardware.

They are both good games, but offer very different styles of play and emotions.

[wika_woo 182]

I predict a lock coming anyway... .

I play ArmA and COD 4 .

For me COD 4 has a great storyline so far on SP mode.

It's a shame that ArmA could've had a better campaign.

I enjoy playing both games.

In before Lock

[Guest Ti0n3r]

Like others already said, they are two totally different games... CoD 4 is polished and well made, ArmA isn't. Too bad.

Edit: Oh and 'simulation' my ass. ArmA is just as unrealistic as most new games on the market (except that 1 - 3 bullets are enough to kill you in ArmA). ArmA can however be realistic, but then you'd have to use quite a lot of mods and scripts.

[croc4 0]

I find it funny how people use the "simulation" tag to explain the short comings of arma and they hang their whole argument on it, Comon, arma is a fps, with just a slower pace, and its just a game, your not a real soldier.

And actually aren't coop missions also somewhat linear?, there are triggers that cause an action when the mission is created right, so I think we are splitting hairs on that point, but I'm sure COD4 relies more on it.

[bigshot 64]

I find it funny how people use the "simulation" tag to explain the short comings of arma and they hang their whole argument on it, Comon, arma is a fps, with just a slower pace, and its just a game, your not a real soldier.

And actually aren't coop missions also somewhat linear?, there are triggers that cause an action when the mission is created right, so I think we are splitting hairs on that point, but I'm sure COD4 relies more on it.

yes, there are triggered events in arma..but its alot different. Arma triggers can ocur at differnt times (or not at all) each time you replay the mission...whereas in other games the mission cant even continue unless a certain trigger goes off at the same time, everytime...and it must be triggered in the same exact manner everytime...arma triggers are much more configuarble and dynamic, and you dont have to be lead by the hand to set them off either. For this reason you can have arma missions with several different endings/outcomes where thats impossible with other games.

The cost if course is that Arma doesnt have the same sort of "in your face" fun factor that other games have...it can get too slow, a little boring and sometimes frustrating as compared to quicker moving fragfests that offer immediate results and grreat graphic effects...on the positive side arma will generally receive alot more hard drive time than most others.

There's a place and time for BOTH types of these games, but technically speaking you really cant compare them on paper since they differ so much under the hood.

Yes..Im an arma fan...but im also a UT fan (which is the biggest frag fest arcade game around, lol...just depends on what sort of mood youre in :-)

[froggyluv 2136]

I find it funny how people use the "simulation" tag to explain the short comings of arma and they hang their whole argument on it, Comon, arma is a fps, with just a slower pace, and its just a game, your not a real soldier.

And actually aren't coop missions also somewhat linear?, there are triggers that cause an action when the mission is created right, so I think we are splitting hairs on that point, but I'm sure COD4 relies more on it.

You can't be serious. There is much more qualifying Arma as a simulator than number of shots per kill. How about how you can approach any target area from an direction by any means that are available be it land,air, or sea. How about how you can sit back and order squads, snipers, artillery, spec-ops, air support anywhere on the huge map. How about when you kill an enemy he stays dead. How about an editor that allows almost infinite gameplay types limited only by imagination (and a few bugs   ).

I'm not here to bash COD 4, but as stated, they are vastly two different programs and really unfit for comparison.

[croc4 0]

Yes they are different games, but if you boil it down they are both fps, arma has more options to it, but does that make is a better game?, I guess it depends on what your looking for. If people insist on calling this a simulator, where is the simulated stress of real combat (not that I know what that feels like), but it seems to be lacking from arma, sometimes when I play arma it feels like an army game for Geriatrics.

I think there needs to be a blending of the two games, both have their good points, and you'd have a far better game if they were IMO. I'm hoping that Arma2 is head and sholders better than arma

[andersson 285]

"A better game", thats very subjective.

I think arma is a better game compared to all FPS. I think so because the way I play (taking villages in Ia Trang for 7 hours until your side has 200 kills, OFP. Doing recce missions for a couple of hours in north sahrani mostly camping and taking notes).

Some of my friends join me in MP, some of my friends will not touch ofp/arma. I understand them because they like another gameplay. To me OFP ruined all other FPS more or less... (except AvsP gold edition which I still play).

edit:

with this I mean that if one game is good the other must not be bad... They can coexist, its up to people to play what they want. I havent tried Cod4, but I guess its really good?

If arma didnt exist I would still play OFP because of the gameplay even if it looks awful compared to games today. I just like to navigate with map and compass too much

[dmarkwick 261]

I picked this up this weekend, and boy does it look good, and after seeing some of the landscape, buildings etc, I can't help but ask why can't Arma look as good without needing a beefy system. Sure the maps are not as large, but I don't care if I can see 5 miles away, I'm more concerned with the AI shooting at me from 100 meters away. There has to be something that can be done to make it run better than it does now, even the AI seems pretty good, they take cover, and even try flanking you.

even if it is scripted, I don't care, it has the illusion of being real and thats all that really matters since they are both just games

(I laugh at the "simulation" tag people use) And the firefights, I find them far more intense than arma.

I'm sure the fan buys will snub there noses at it, I have not tried multiplayer, been too busy with the single player campain, which is

well done. Again why couldn't arma be as polished?

My point?, it just seems that Arma needs a lot of polish, hope fully Arma2 will be of higher quality without the need for a cray to run it on.

Looks like COD4 is the game for you. Why try making one game more like another game? Why would people simply make exactly the same game over & over, just the same as all the others?

Oh yeah, that's right. Lowest Common Denominator.

Luckily for the rest of us, BIS develop for a fat slice of a small pie rather than a thin slice of a huge pie.

[W0lle 1050]

Use the CoD4 thread in the offtopic forum.