ArmA 2 vs OFP 2

[Fredsas 0]

What you seem to forget is that casual gamers won't LIKE a game that's realistic (one bullet=death) and consoles are mostly targeted towards casual gamers.

What casual gamers want is not what most dedicated arma players want.

I don't know in what world you live in, but in mine "total realism" given todays processing/network capabilities is a far away dream.

Anyway, again, let's wait untill both games are out and then return to this discussion. Untill then Arma2 gets the advantage of "proven fun" for me. I don't buy stuff because people say it's going to be good, I buy stuff when I can measure how good they are myself.

Well then I don't see what the problem is. It's not like OFP or Arma are mainstream products. They are niche markets. We know BIS dumbed down Arma to appeal more to the mainstream market. And supposedly they are aiming for the main stream market with Arma 2 as well. Which was one of the main reasons why in the eyes of hardcore OFP fans Arma was disappointing. So its worked the opposite way to what you are saying.

[celery 8]

We know BIS dumbed down Arma to appeal more to the mainstream market.

How?

[jakerod 254]

What you seem to forget is that casual gamers won't LIKE a game that's realistic (one bullet=death) and consoles are mostly targeted towards casual gamers.

What casual gamers want is not what most dedicated arma players want.

I don't know in what world you live in, but in mine "total realism" given todays processing/network capabilities is a far away dream.

Anyway, again, let's wait untill both games are out and then return to this discussion. Untill then Arma2 gets the advantage of "proven fun" for me. I don't buy stuff because people say it's going to be good, I buy stuff when I can measure how good they are myself.

Well then I don't see what the problem is. It's not like OFP or Arma are mainstream products. They are niche markets. We know BIS dumbed down Arma to appeal more to the mainstream market. And supposedly they are aiming for the main stream market with Arma 2 as well. Which was one of the main reasons why in the eyes of hardcore OFP fans Arma was disappointing. So its worked the opposite way to what you are saying.

A.) I see no way that BIS dumbed it down.

B.) I was one of the "hardcore OFP fans" and I like ArmA... matter of fact the reason I am no longer one of those "hardcore OFP fans" is because I am now a hardcore ArmA fan since I believe that ArmA is superior. Sure there are things I miss from OFP, the time period and hind, but ArmA is not a dumbed down OFP and I find it to be much... much better.

[Fredsas 0]

We know BIS dumbed down Arma to appeal more to the mainstream market.

How?

They did it to improve playability and infantry fun.

On the question of How, try shooting a rifle or machinegun at someone 150m away. The dispersion is enormous, in a modern age where assault rifles can maintain accuracy to 250m and above. Their accurate ballistics don't really seem to match up with anything real.

Try killing a tank like an M1A1 in Arma, it takes like 4 or 5 RPGs to kill it. In the Iraq, an abandon M1A1 stuck in a ditch was hit with 2 Hellfire missiles and a Maverick to destroy it rather than leave it to be claimed by the enemy as a trophy. The US soldiers were surprised to find no external damage to the tank

But in mathematical terms. Armour vs penetration, an M1A1 has about 920mm armour vs kinetic (sabot) rounds and equivalent 1320m armour vs HEAT on the turret. A Hellfire missile's warhead can penetrate about 1200mm of armour. Hence mathematically a hellfire can't penetrate an M1A1. As proven in the real world. Not simulated in Arma. Dumbed down.

A T72's steel based sabot round can penetrate about 650mm of Armour. Hence it won't penetrate an M1s armour as stated above. Also proven in the real world. Arma not being dumbed down of course would have this simulated in the game. Indeed this was simulated in OFP. As actual M1 could survive over 4 sabot rounds from T72, simulated in OFP, not in Arma.. Dumbed down

Lots of other stuff lacking.

[mr.g-c 6]

Sadly i have to agree on Fredsas point here.

They did it because of my most hated term ever - "balancing"....

Like you posted earlier somewhere else, i'm 100% with the OFP2 Developer here.

Balancing is something for babies - if there is no balance to a certain Weapon system in RL, let it be like it is. Mission designer has to find a different way then to make it still a challenging experience.

[Yoma 0]

It's not like OFP or Arma are mainstream products. They are niche markets.

Now your starting to give very good arguments against OFP2.

Chances are very slim a company like CM will target their game entirely on a "nice market". My bet is that OFP2 will appeal a lot more to casual gamers then Arma2 will.

[Deadfast 43]

...And supposedly they are aiming for the main stream market with Arma 2 as well...

Source?

Or is this another one of your hearsay?

[POTS 0]

This entire ArmA mainstream crap is BS. ArmA's infantry is the most difficult to control infantry out of any game. This is usualy the first thing people complain about is ArmA's clunkyness. And are some people forgeting that ArmA was released in an unfinished state? They could not afford it, so stop bashing BIS like they purposley made it beta like, they simply didn't have enough money. Now that BIS have the money I'm betting there new game will be killer. OFP2 is all talk, nothing else. Sure, it's amazing talk, but It's still just talk.

[Fredsas 0]

It's not like OFP or Arma are mainstream products. They are niche markets.

Now your starting to give very good arguments against OFP2.

Chances are very slim a company like CM will target their game entirely on a "nice market". My bet is that OFP2 will appeal a lot more to casual gamers then Arma2 will.

Actually the devs at CM made it pretty clear that they would give the hardcore OFP fans a game to be proud of. A hardcore simulation. Something I'm ashamed to say that Arma is totally lacking. Can't say about Arma 2 as BIS is not saying if it will be a hardcore simulation not. But being human and seeing it looks just like Arma 1, I'm guessing its gonna be the same thing

[POTS 0]

We know BIS dumbed down Arma to appeal more to the mainstream market.

How?

They did it to improve playability and infantry fun.

On the question of How, try shooting a rifle or machinegun at someone 150m away. The dispersion is enormous, in a modern age where assault rifles can maintain accuracy to 250m and above. Their accurate ballistics don't really seem to match up with anything real.

Try killing a tank like an M1A1 in Arma, it takes like 4 or 5 RPGs to kill it. In the Iraq, an abandon M1A1 stuck in a ditch was hit with 2 Hellfire missiles and a Maverick to destroy it rather than leave it to be claimed by the enemy as a trophy. The US soldiers were surprised to find no external damage to the tank

But in mathematical terms. Armour vs penetration, an M1A1 has about 920mm armour vs kinetic (sabot) rounds and equivalent 1320m armour vs HEAT on the turret. A Hellfire missile's warhead can penetrate about 1200mm of armour. Hence mathematically a hellfire can't penetrate an M1A1. As proven in the real world. Not simulated in Arma. Dumbed down.

A T72's steel based sabot round can penetrate about 650mm of Armour. Hence it won't penetrate an M1s armour as stated above. Also proven in the real world. Arma not being dumbed down of course would have this simulated in the game. Indeed this was simulated in OFP. As actual M1 could survive over 4 sabot rounds from T72, simulated in OFP, not in Arma.. Dumbed down

Lots of other stuff lacking.

Dr.Fresdas here believes it's impossible for 4 or 5 rpg's to not kill an abrams. LOL! I also bet you didn't know that a t-90 is impenetrable by all known infantry AT weapons. RPG's ARE NOT STRONG. They are cheap, quantity over quality, rocket propelled GRENADES.

[Yoma 0]

Sadly i have to agree on Fredsas point here.

They did it because of my most hated term ever - "balancing"....

Like you posted earlier somewhere else, i'm 100% with the OFP2 Developer here.

Balancing is something for babies - if there is no balance to a certain Weapon system in RL, let it be like it is. Mission designer has to find a different way then to make it still a challenging experience.

Balancing is needed for the sake of playability.

If you get rid of balance then you also get rid of most of any PVP experience. If not you'd join a game and wouldn't want to join the "badly handicapped" side.

But of course you can just as easy unbalance the whole thing by leaving it up to the mission designer too.

Anyway i'm tired of this pointless discussion.

In the end it doesn't matter too much to me whether you whine up to BIS for more realism or think OFP2 will be the mother of all battlesims.

I'm pretty sure I'll be happy with Arma2 like I'm happy with Arma.

[jakerod 254]

We know BIS dumbed down Arma to appeal more to the mainstream market.

How?

They did it to improve playability and infantry fun.

On the question of How, try shooting a rifle or machinegun at someone 150m away. The dispersion is enormous, in a modern age where assault rifles can maintain accuracy to 250m and above. Their accurate ballistics don't really seem to match up with anything real.

[...]

The US soldiers were surprised to find no external damage to the tank

But in mathematical terms. Armour vs penetration, an M1A1 has about 920mm armour vs kinetic (sabot) rounds and equivalent 1320m armour vs HEAT on the turret. A Hellfire missile's warhead can penetrate about 1200mm of armour. Hence mathematically a hellfire can't penetrate an M1A1. As proven in the real world. Not simulated in Arma. Dumbed down.

[..]

Lots of other stuff lacking.

I can hit stuff fine with a rifle or machine gun from that range. Were you standing trying to fire the machine gun or were you lying down?

I also find it hard to believe that there was no EXTERNAL damage to the tank. I would think a Hellfire would at least dent it.

Technically the "invincibility" of the Abrams was never shown in OFP and thus wouldn't have been dumbed down from OFP.

Even if it was that is one example. Where are the rest that you claim there are?

[Fredsas 0]

This entire ArmA mainstream crap is BS. ArmA's infantry is the most difficult to control infantry out of any game. This is usualy the first thing people complain about is ArmA's clunkyness. And are some people forgeting that ArmA was released in an unfinished state? They could not afford it, so stop bashing BIS like they purposley made it beta like, they simply didn't have enough money. Now that BIS have the money I'm betting there new game will be killer. OFP2 is all talk, nothing else. Sure, it's amazing talk, but It's still just talk.

Ahh, you better look at the in game footage of Arma 2 then.. But its probably still unfinished

[Fredsas 0]

Dr.Fresdas here believes it's impossible for 4 or 5 rpg's to not kill an abrams. LOL! I also bet you didn't know that a t-90 is impenetrable by all known infantry AT weapons. RPG's ARE NOT STRONG. They are cheap, quantity over quality, rocket propelled GRENADES.

Exactly Pots. Then why does it happen in a great sim like Arma?

An RPG can penetrate about 200 to 250mm of armour. There is no chance in hell it will penetrate a tank with 1300m vs HEAT.

[froggyluv 2136]

Hmm, good point. but maybe you'll want to tell that to the Unreal players. Unreal which by the way is a multi-CPU, GPU capable heavy PhysX (Havok) based multiplayer engine/game. A car would be treated no differently in general from a soldier's body, which by the way would be even more complex because it would literally have more moving parts eg. arms, head, legs with rag doll physics etc.

Again in terms of size of battlefield, network info would go hand in hand with the streaming content engine. No point in processing, or sending action info on what you cant see. Some location info yes, but nothing else more complicated.

In general that is why I've always questioned the capabilities of the Engine and not specifically the finished game. I have considered the Game 2 engine which is why they should have built new engine from scratch. After all they had the time to do it. Codemasters did it in about the same amount of time as they had.

So basically what your saying is that by using the Unreal engine or a derivative of, plus streaming engine, and your good to go on a ' move anywhere, use any vehicle, mass-army with AI that is capable of both small-unit tactics and General-like leadership, can clear houses like Swat 4, destroy buildings and environments like Crysis, AI flying and driving as ordered by both player and AI tactically around the area of a small country'?

Here's the question: If so easy, why hasn't it been done 10 times over? Surely you speak of a game the entire gaming world wants to play yet why do huge companies like EA, Dice, Ubi etc... deprive us of this gaming godliness?

I sincerely believe CM is attempting this holy grail of feats but the jury is still most definitely out. They are generally trying to please this audience with great pomp but haven't you noticed how quiet they became after releasing their erhm...cough...footage?

[POTS 0]

Dr.Fresdas here believes it's impossible for 4 or 5 rpg's to not kill an abrams. LOL! I also bet you didn't know that a t-90 is impenetrable by all known infantry AT weapons. RPG's ARE NOT STRONG. They are cheap, quantity over quality, rocket propelled GRENADES.

Exactly Pots. Then why does it happen in a great sim like Arma?

An RPG can penetrate about 200 to 250mm of armour. There is no chance in hell it will penetrate a tank with 1300m vs HEAT.

Oh, you worded that weird. I guess I actualy agree with you on that point then. Although, you might have forgoten that there is a difference between an m1a1 and m1a2, so keep that in mind.

[Fredsas 0]

Sadly i have to agree on Fredsas point here.

They did it because of my most hated term ever - "balancing"....

Like you posted earlier somewhere else, i'm 100% with the OFP2 Developer here.

Balancing is something for babies - if there is no balance to a certain Weapon system in RL, let it be like it is. Mission designer has to find a different way then to make it still a challenging experience.

Balancing is needed for the sake of playability.

If you get rid of balance then you also get rid of most of any PVP experience. If not you'd join a game and wouldn't want to join the "badly handicapped" side.

But of course you can just as easy unbalance the whole thing by leaving it up to the mission designer too.

Anyway i'm tired of this pointless discussion.

In the end it doesn't matter too much to me whether you whine up to BIS for more realism or think OFP2 will be the mother of all battlesims.

I'm pretty sure I'll be happy with Arma2 like I'm happy with Arma.

Well then it is like I was saying before. Arma was a step down from OFP and I guess people will be happy with Arma 2 being a step down as well. That is okay I guess. But it is amazing that they will still go ahead and claim Arma / Arma 2 is the best simulation. Looks like they still have the memory of OFP stars in their eyes, but none of the substance

[froggyluv 2136]

But it is amazing that they will still go ahead and claim Arma / Arma 2 is the best simulation. Looks like they still have the memory of OFP stars in their eyes, but none of the substance

Sorry, but name me a better one.

[Fredsas 0]

Oh, you worded that weird. I guess I actualy agree with you on that point then. Although, you might have forgoten that there is a difference between an m1a1 and m1a2, so keep that in mind..

True, an M1A2 has around the area of 1200mm vs kinetic.

Don't have any definite data on the M1A2 for HEAT, however it uses the same type of armour as a Challenger 2 and so probably then has similar levels.

I do know that a Challenger 2 in one instance in Iraq easily survived 12 RPGs and Milan ATGM missile, and in another survived over 60 RPGs. Lets hope we can get a Challenger 2 in there. One for the UK

[jakerod 254]

But it is amazing that they will still go ahead and claim Arma / Arma 2 is the best simulation. Looks like they still have the memory of OFP stars in their eyes, but none of the substance

Sorry, but name me a better one.

I would also like to hear one.

The only possible options I can think of are:

OFP: I agree it was the best simulation of its time but ArmA is a step higher.

ArmA II: Not out yet so can't say. High expectations here.

OFP II: Not out yet so can't say. Not expecting much from it though.

EDIT: Who was commanding that Challenger that got hit 60 times and what the hell were they doing allowing someone to get 60 hits on it?

[Fredsas 0]

Here's the question: If so easy, why hasn't it been done 10 times over? Surely you speak of a game the entire gaming world wants to play yet why do huge companies like EA, Dice, Ubi etc... deprive us of this gaming godliness?

I sincerely believe CM is attempting this holy grail of feats but the jury is still most definitely out. They are generally trying to please this audience with great pomp but haven't you noticed how quiet they became after releasing their erhm...cough...footage?

I agree with you there Froggyluv. But since Arma and Probably Arma 2 are already ruled out. There is nothing else to wait for, so we wait with bated breath

[Fredsas 0]

EDIT: Who was commanding that Challenger that got hit 60 times and what the hell were they doing allowing someone to get 60 hits on it?

lol Jakerod. That was the first thing I wondered myself..

The report didn't give any details. But I'm guessing they were ambushed in a street from RPG squads on surrounding rooftops. (Worst type of ambush to a tank)

[POTS 0]

EDIT: Who was commanding that Challenger that got hit 60 times and what the hell were they doing allowing someone to get 60 hits on it?

lol Jakerod. That was the first thing I wondered myself..

The report didn't give any details. But I'm guessing they were ambushed in a street from RPG squads on surrounding rooftops. (Worst type of ambush to a tank)

He probably sustained it to the strongest points of the tank, so we need that information as well.

[sk3pt 0]

Challenger 2 pierced by RPG

[Fredsas 0]

EDIT: Who was commanding that Challenger that got hit 60 times and what the hell were they doing allowing someone to get 60 hits on it?

lol Jakerod. That was the first thing I wondered myself..

The report didn't give any details. But I'm guessing they were ambushed in a street from RPG squads on surrounding rooftops. (Worst type of ambush to a tank)

He probably sustained it to the strongest points of the tank, so we need that information as well.

On hindsight, can you imagine the look on those guys faces as the realisation that they couldn't kill the tank dawned on them? They probably all ran away shouting that the tank was the devil