ArmA 2 vs OFP 2

[ZeroG_181 0]

To me, it seems like OFP2 will be a more realistic version of CoD4, because to be honest, the animations seem to be smoother. It's on a different engine, if I'm not mistaken, so we won't know until a good gameplay video comes about.

EDIT: Was I just imagining seeing OFP2 animations?

[Pathy 0]

I feel that OPF2 will be better, not because I prefer CM over BI, it's just that CM have worked on it for a solid 7 years, they managed to get the best model and texture artists from all over the world, They seem very confident in the product which is always a good sign, and because CM have places all over the world to make the game in, and simply, because those in game videos we saw at Leipzig were stunning.

BI are the original creators, and they know what to do, but ArmA was too much like OPF, also, BI shouldn't have been faffing around with ArmA, they should have just kept on working with the game 2 project, and from what i've seen the the ArmA 2 videos, is a upgraded version of ArmA with some new models and textures thrown in, the AI still look clumsy in some parts of the video (Like turning around and walking with their back towards the enemy), the Animations (which were the worst part of ArmA) are still there, the Stand to Prone animation was dreadful.

But anyway, Time will tell, to be honest, if it wasn't for the community add-ons, I would have given up with the ArmA series a long time ago.

Your statement is flawed on so many levels.

1: CM haven't been working on it 7 years.

2: You see confidence, I see hype. Hype is never a good sign.

3: Everything we've seen has either had a 300m view distance, been a render, or looked shite. A game that looks stunning up to that range, but can't handle anything more is no good for me.

4: Yes, so BI know what they are doing. ArmA was ALWAYS billed as an interim product, OFP 1.5, if you brought it expecting anything else, then it's you're own fault. I was happy to buy it, as something was needed to keep the company in buisness. Without it, no Game 2, BI go the way of the dodo, and we lose an innovative game company who've provided us with the best "Soldier Sim" ever developed. 25 quid every 3 odd years to help keep BI in buisness....sure, no problem.

5: Marek has stated that they got ArmA wrong, and that they'll do everything in thier power to get ArmA2 (game2) right. What can I say? I believe....

...To be honest, all i've seen you do is troll this forum about how shit ArmA is, how shit ArmA2 is going to be, and how fantastic OFP2 is going to be. Why are you still here? Wouldn't the CM forum be better suited to you, if you think the ArmA series is such tripe, and that OFP2 will cure cancer?

[Kendo J 1]

Quote[/b] ]

an innovative game company who've provided us with the best "Soldier Sim" ever developed. 25 quid every 3 odd years to help keep BI in buisness....sure, no problem.

Pathy is correct, Even tho I don't have AA (my little bro does, i still have to play OFPr).

The fact is BI are developing the Armed Assault games alongside VBS which the military use.

CM are developing a game for those who like battlefield and other similar multiplayer or SP games that are popular, and will make them loads of money. They may have a huge team and their games will be good.

BUT for military geeks we are not overawed by fancy graphics these are secondary to the important things such as AI, large environments (for OFP && AA possibly the largest real world style environment) and the ability to manipulate all aspects of the game in the editor.

The way I see it is I would buy CM's OFP'2 but only to play occasionally when I am bored and need a bit of instant action.

OFPr,AA and its newer counterparts never give instant action but stand the test of time for re playability and immersiveness.

Of course AA2 will be better, by miles, the fact i still paly OFPr proves this style is superior in my mind. CM's game will just be that a game. Ofpr, AA and AA2 are not games but simulators.

Kendo

[sniper pilot 36]

I am not going to quote those posts, but what Pathy and Heatseeker said is pure gold and I agree with them 110%

They touched on the key aspects of why i and others are still here today.

[mr_centipede 31]

If I had to chose between the two, I would pick ARMA 2. Mostly because I'm already familiar with ArmA and OFP from BIS. I know what to expect, so I would hardly be dissapointed much. maybe some features that I would like to be there wasn't there, but I won't cry like its the end of the world or something. Unless they change it dramatically like ubisoft did to Tom Clancy brand, the I would cry and breathe a fire.

As for OFP2 from codemaster, honestly I'm intrigue by it. Might as well get both. So, lets just wait for 2009 shall we?

[celery 8]

In all honesty I can't compare the two games as there hasn't been much concrete data of their features yet, although a little has been revealed about ArmA 2. Codemasters are yet to make an above average game (just see the games they have made) so OFP2 might be just as unimaginative and restricting as its makers. AA2 however is so far little more than Armed Assault like it should have been in the first place. I'll read a review first before buying either one.

[Alex72 1]

I wonder if those who feel arma was a total let down ever played on locked servers with a lot of team players. When your on a server like that, arma becomes more than a game, it becomes an experience. An experience you have in your head for days afterwards.

I know many people that played arma on pub servers and wasnt up to speed with addons etc and the experience for them was so-so to bad-boring. ArmA is extremelly fun when all clicks. The really good thing with ArmA2, as we so far have seen, is that many of the addons we feel we need to make ArmA1 fun are already in there. Then also add that everything is more or less improved! So with this info i pretty much know that ArmA2 will be a great f*king game for me.

Regards

Alex

[celery 8]

72 @ Sep. 20 2008,16:25)]I wonder if those who feel arma was a total let down ever played on locked servers with a lot of team players. When your on a server like that, arma becomes more than a game, it becomes an experience. An experience you have in your head for days afterwards.

You can make kicking cow dung an experience with the right company. It doesn't change the fact that without all the bugs and faults the experience would be much nicer, perhaps even so nice that there's no need to promote locking yourself up from the public to have a good time.

[Alex72 1]

And thats what ArmA2 seems to be. That was my point with ArmA2 or OFP2. Just stating that people not liking ArmA1 because of these bugs/non-features might love what ArmA2 will be.

And i know personally people that played arma and didnt like it, but when i gave them links to addons and let them play with us - they loved it. So there are people that never got to experience arma in its best ways, and dumped it because of that.

[aus_twisted 0]

72 @ Sep. 20 2008,21:15)]And thats what ArmA2 seems to be. That was my point with ArmA2 or OFP2. Just stating that people not liking ArmA1 because of these bugs/non-features might love what ArmA2 will be.

And i know personally people that played arma and didnt like it, but when i gave them links to addons and let them play with us - they loved it. So there are people that never got to experience arma in its best ways, and dumped it because of that.

I dont really blame them, ArmA was in early beta stage when it released to the public. BTW I still constantly see tanks flying into the air and ArmA has been out almost 2 years, that right there can ruin the whole game in a lot of missions.

[celery 8]

BTW I still constantly see tanks flying into the air and ArmA has been out almost 2 years, that right there can ruin the whole game in a lot of missions.

Oh sorry, that's just my deathmatch maps.  

[funnyguy1 0]

To me, ofp2 will look better, simply because CM have more money, ppl etc. to work on details like anims, special effects, little gfx features etc. I think it's safe to say that it'll be more hollywoodish than ArmA2, no matter what, and it'll attract ppl playing RS:Vegas too.

BIS games, are quite spartan when it comes to little eye-candy details, but that's not so important when it comes to war sims.

ArmA2 will be an improoved ofp/ArmA, and with every title they're adding more, and more of those little things and upgrade the others, but it just can't win with the large ammount of eye-candy ofp2 will bring. (by eye-candy I mean also things important from the other points of view such as enter/exit anims for vehicles etc.)

We still haven't seen the ofp2's AI, and we all know that even without mods BIS' AI can kick your ass. On the other hand, CM might create AI that looks like it was smarter (not to mention it will be decent anyway), and the tactical, yet quite clumsy AI from ArmA won't be enough this time.

The overall mood, story and missions will also have a big impact, and again, the Call Of Duty-like atmosphere might work well on the contrary to ArmA's not-that-good campaign. BIS' atut, however, is now the Razor team, so it's still hard to say wo will win.

When it comes to realism, ArmA2 is on a pool position. Ofp2 however, might win with the visual kind of realism, or "better this than nothing" kind of realism. Animations, targeting systems etc. - you know what I mean.

When it comes to me, I'm going to buy ArmA2, and I'll certainly try ofp2. Two good games are always better than one, and I don't see a reason to buy just one of them.

[-Total- 0]

Definitely a great response!

I look forward to both. I've had a heap of fun in ArmA and never jad the "It's not what I grew used to in OFP" disposition. Once it was patched and the major bugs fixed, I had even more fun with it.

I am hoping ArmA 2 will be a different game and not just ArmA with some better-looking graphics.

OFP2 looks great, but too many games these days focus on the eye candy and leave the gameplay as a secondary goal. In some aspects, I am a bit worried about OFP2 in that aspect, but I'll buy it as well.

Both games will wind up being more of the First Person RTS that lends itself more towards single player campaigns and CoOp missions rather than massive multiplayer. Simply put, it's impossible to effectively coordinate that many people on one team. Too many have their own idea on how to play and the lack of teamwork would be devastating. The gaming world just isn't ready for that sort of strategical and tactical teamwork on that scale. That's why the small, frag-orientated games are the most popular. They cater to the individual rather than the team.

So, yeah - both in their own rights will hopefully be great games that keep me immersed for quite a while to come.

With these two titles as well as X3: Terran Conflict and DCS KA-50 Blackshark on the horizon as well, I think I'm gonna be wearing out my joystick and mouse over the next year

[Mr. AG 0]

I have more sad future prognosis.  

The big portion of old OFP fans were utterly disspointed, even mad at BiS. They still bought the full game.

With ARMA2 they wont do it. Demo first. Those include CTI ECL CTF players. These players suffer from; as i call it "Lack of OFP Atmosphere Sindrome" - LOFPAS . I suffer from it too. We sing in chorus: arma has garbage campaign, player controls, sounds, recoil, funny beeps after vehicle explosion, dumb airvehicles controls, wich make helis easy targets for tanks, dumb ais ... et cetera.

So at this point Codies have better cards on their hands.  

Both games might live together, but i feel one game will leave the arena eventually and something suggest it might be BiS.

Next year gonna be interesting.

>Total ... yeah ... Egosoft foreva    

[-Total- 0]

I actually liked the vehicles handling in ArmA alot more than in OFP. OFp felt more like a BF series game than anything, but that's just my tastes. The recoil was a bit more on target to me as well lol!

As far sa the campaign, ArmA's campaign left alot to be desired. I thought QG's campaign was ALOT better structured and immersive

And yeah - 12 more days until X#: Terran Conflict is released

[Kirby 2]

I have a solution to it all... Buy them both!

Thats what I'm going to do. ArmA II first, then OFP2 when I have more spare money.

[LJF 0]

I'm buying both, the thing is, CodeMasters have a terrible track record of restrictions, semi-realism to appeal to the console hordes, and a lack of anything that is new.

Just look at OFP2 (OK, it's just my opinion but deal with it):

1. Average graphics - textures from '05.

2. Fixed crosshair.

3. Fake first person (what you see is just a "first person" model/animation etc).

4. The fact they only realised the marines used a seahawk and not a blackhawk when it was pointed out to them in their own forums kind of undermines their assertion of epic authenticness and detail ... ness.

5. NOTHING NEW!

I mean seriously, I think it will be a great game - I even tried to have fun playing GRID, but had to make do with pretending it was just an overly restrictive demo version - but I don't think it will be anything we haven't already seen.

ArmA 2 on the other hand, looks like it's pretty much a repackage of ArmA - which it is. But that is by no means a bad thing when you consider that they are pimping it out. Multicore support, female civilians (Sahrani was an all-male island - save for the reporter), more vehicles and weapons than you can poke a stick at, an epic island, the best graphics to grace a screen in history (take THAT crysis), trees that don't carry knives with "your FPS" written across the blade, a HIND! and I'm told it has epic destructable buildings too! WHAT ISN'T TO LIKE!?!?!?

I think the main difference will be that OFP2 will be a cross between BF2/COD4 and a touch of realism whereas ArmA2 will be ArmA1 but even more epic.

As for me, I'm building myself a $1900 computer to run them both, buying ArmA2, OFP2 and Empire: Total War and sitting down to play them all ... for a long ... long ... long time.

[celery 8]

Just curious, does anyone know the maximum size of an island in square kilometers that ArmA2 supports?

[Viiiper 0]

Just curious, does anyone know the maximum size of an island in square kilometers that ArmA2 supports?

I believe is was mentioned 244Sq Km

approx 2x ARMA 1 land area.

[celery 8]

Isn't that only the land area of the map included in the game? If I remember correctly, OFP could support far larger islands than the original ones.

[paragraphic l 2]

I recall an interview where someone from BIS said that there has not been a change with this compared to arma. This because in ArmA the maximum island size is not used at the very least and with ArmA 2 the island is more detailed, not bigger. But I'm not 100% sure.

[celery 8]

I recall an interview where someone from BIS said that there has not been a change with this compared to arma. This because in ArmA the maximum island size is not used at the very least and with ArmA 2 the island is more detailed, not bigger. But I'm not 100% sure.

What's the maximum size in ArmA then?

[MehMan 0]

Well, due to the streaming technology I believe there is no limit, in theory, the limit is more in practicality, as a huge island will have a huge size in the GB range.

I think making the falklands would be quite possible. It'd be quite a workload, but I do wonder if the size would be managable?

[paragraphic l 2]

Quote[/b] ]Max size for V3 is 2048 grid size with 20 metres cells size which equals 40960 Metres terrain size . Any bigger and you'll run into the problem where you are unable to select objects in Buldozer.

- Aussie in ARMA : MAP EDITING (VISITOR) » Maximum island size topic

Quote[/b] ]I have made 204 x 204km terrain, its not fully working as there is some bugs that cause RPT go nuts. But for example my 51km x 51km desert terrain runs absolutely smooth for hours, no problems.

These above of course are the 4WVR oldschool method, not the satellite texture layer thing.

-Snake Man in the same thread

So the ArmA engine might allow more than this, but it's not yet proven AFAIK

[Second 0]

EDIT: Blah. Rant of tiredness.