ArmA 2 vs OFP 2

[sk3pt 0]

"realistic radar simulation"

That would be awesome.

If developing VBS makes them feel like they HAVE to 'downgrade' ArmA, not to lose credibility, it's sad.'

But I'm not complaining, it's still a great game  .

[jakerod 254]

I kill T72 everyday by hitting the flank near the engine with a couple of cartigages of .50 CAL and thats simply ridicolous (its even easier with the 40mm grenades)..

You could just not shoot it there. It isn't like the AI uses that weakness against you. I agree that probably shouldn't be possible to do but no one is forcing you to take those shots.

[Jensen1 0]

to use PhisX or havok means that developers will need to use a huge sum of money to buy their license, which BI might not have, then again, if those physics engine did works in the game and BI have the money for them, i cant see the reason not to use them

-[uTw]-Bert from the germ comm, tells in the the hx3 forums that PhysX is now in testing phase for vbs2.

http://hx3.de/veteranen-stammtisch-141/vbs-2-a-14224/8/#post203246

Maybe BIS is preparing a nice suprise for us or maybe not.  

Unfortunatley I'm pretty sure we won't get anything from vbs 1 or 2. or anything else we havn't already heard about.

[Michael_Wittman 0]

I kill T72 everyday by hitting the flank near the engine with a couple of cartigages of .50 CAL and thats simply ridicolous (its even easier with the 40mm grenades)..

You could just not shoot it there. It isn't like the AI uses that weakness against you. I agree that probably shouldn't be possible to do but no one is forcing you to take those shots.

I really dont get the point..

What do you mean? That I should behave like the AI or that I should imagine that the tank armor is properly modelled and play acordingly?? If I have to use my imagination I prefer Role Play and trow the dices...or point my finger and yell bang!

c´mon......

[celery 8]

The grass is always greener...

- Soviet proverb

[Jensen1 0]

I kill T72 everyday by hitting the flank near the engine with a couple of cartigages of .50 CAL and thats simply ridicolous (its even easier with the 40mm grenades)..

You could just not shoot it there. It isn't like the AI uses that weakness against you. I agree that probably shouldn't be possible to do but no one is forcing you to take those shots.

I really dont get the point..  

What do you mean? That I should behave like the AI or that I should imagine that the tank armor is properly modelled and play acordingly?? If I have to use my imagination I prefer Role Play and trow the dices...or point my finger and yell bang!

c´mon......  

yeah I have never seen a post so ridiculous as the one jakerod made... Well other than my own that is.

[jakerod 254]

It makes perfect sense.

I took his post as him complaining about how hitting the back wheel on the tank and having it become immobilized in ArmA is unrealistic. He said that he shoots tanks there to take them out.

The point I was trying to get across was that if he wants to play the  game realistically he shouldn't shoot the tank there. Nobody is forcing him to hit the tank in that spot and the AI don't normally aim for that spot so really there is no draw back to it.

He merely chooses to play the game unrealistically by choosing to hit the tank in that weak point and thus should not be complaining about how unrealistic it is because he chooses to use that tactic.

MP is a different story but I have yet to see someone online use that tactic as well so I see no problem there either.

You don't have to use your imagination, you just have to go if I hit the tank there and immobilize it then that is unrealistic so if I want to play the game realistically I should not hit the tank there.

Or maybe this is more simple...

I want the game to be realistic.

The effect of hitting the tank in the back wheel is unrealistic.

In order for this effect to become active I must hit the tank in the back wheel.

Therefore, I should not hit the tank in the back wheel because the outcome will be unrealistic and thus go against my desire for the game to be realistic.

[sk3pt 0]

Obviously you could play like that, but then ALL games would be realistic .

[jakerod 254]

Obviously you could play like that, but then ALL games would be realistic  .

Well then if you want a game to play as realistically as possible wouldn't you do that?

I am not saying that every game should be realistic but if you want to play a realistic game you should avoid using things or doing things that are unrealistic because it goes against what you want.

Its kind of like me playing Total Annihilation.

I want the game to be difficult.

Using battleships, big berthas, and brawlers makes it too easy.

Therefore, I should not use battleships, brawlers, etc. because it would go against my desire for the game.

Sorry for all the ifs and therefores but its close to finals at school so my mind is a bit warped.

[sk3pt 0]

I see where you're coming from, and I agree, but 'exploits' like this in a "simulator" needs to be addressed I think.

[Fredsas 0]

It makes perfect sense.

I took his post as him complaining about how hitting the back wheel on the tank and having it become immobilized in ArmA is unrealistic. He said that he shoots tanks there to take them out.

The point I was trying to get across was that if he wants to play the  game realistically he shouldn't shoot the tank there. Nobody is forcing him to hit the tank in that spot and the AI don't normally aim for that spot so really there is no draw back to it.

He merely chooses to play the game unrealistically by choosing to hit the tank in that weak point and thus should not be complaining about how unrealistic it is because he chooses to use that tactic.

MP is a different story but I have yet to see someone online use that tactic as well so I see no problem there either.

You don't have to use your imagination, you just have to go if I hit the tank there and immobilize it then that is unrealistic so if I want to play the game realistically I should not hit the tank there.

Get it now?

Hmm, sorry Jakerod, but hitting a tank in the flank and rear is a major part of anti-tank tactics used by infantry and indeed other armoured columns as well. Michael_Wittman is absolutely right in using tactics to destroy enemy armour. In the real world that is the ONLY way infantry can hope to win against a tank without having extra on call battle resources like gunship CAS elements or artillery support. That is exactly what real soldiers would do. Arma is supposed to be a simulation, and hence played like one. Like was said above the AI is not sophisticated enough to attack a formation's flanks and rear. In a Combined-Arms simulation game this little thing they "forgot" to include is a major part of strategy.

You should NOT be making excuses for BIS. It is they who have to get the game right out the box and NOT the third party modders. After all they are the ones (compared to CM) with the real world military support and experience. Arma 2 will be the third generation of what was a great military simulator (OFP), and hence we expect to see a hell of a lot of changes and additions in the game (indeed a whole new game) when it is released. In comparison OFP2 will be a second generation game. I do not under any circumstances expect a second generation game to beat a third generation one. But like I've always said, I try to keep an open mind...

[jakerod 254]

I know that hitting the flank of a tank is a real world tactic. He was complaining about hitting it in a specific wheel with 50 cal rounds or 40mm grenade rounds and having it become immobile which he says is unrealistic. I am fairly sure that is unrealistic too. I was just saying that if it is unrealistic and he wants to play realistically that he should not be using the tactic.

If it is realistic then there is no problem though.

Also I agree that it should be fixed if it is unrealistic. But as of right now it is not fixed and he was complaining that something that he was choosing to do was unrealistic when he could choose to do the realistic thing and not hit it there.

And honestly there are other improvements I would like to see over that one.

[Fredsas 0]

I know that hitting the flank of a tank is a real world tactic. He was complaining about hitting it in a specific wheel with 50 cal rounds or 40mm grenade rounds and having it become immobile which he says is unrealistic. I am fairly sure that is unrealistic too. I was just saying that if it is unrealistic and he wants to play realistically that he should not be using the tactic.

If it is realistic then there is no problem though.

Also I agree that it should be fixed if it is unrealistic. But as of right now it is not fixed and he was complaining that something that he was choosing to do was unrealistic when he could choose to do the realistic thing and not hit it there.

And honestly there are other improvements I would like to see over that one.

Well that and a whole bunch of others. I've kill M1s with the BRDM's 14.5 and 7.62 machine guns. When you see things like that happened you sort of automatically kick into a non realistic mood and that can't be helped. Deep down you know that is BS and this could not possibly be a simulation. So it ends up changing the entire outlook, respect and feeling for the game.

[Michael_Wittman 0]

I know that hitting the flank of a tank is a real world tactic. He was complaining about hitting it in a specific wheel with 50 cal rounds or 40mm grenade rounds and having it become immobile which he says is unrealistic. I am fairly sure that is unrealistic too. I was just saying that if it is unrealistic and he wants to play realistically that he should not be using the tactic.

If it is realistic then there is no problem though.

Also I agree that it should be fixed if it is unrealistic. But as of right now it is not fixed and he was complaining that something that he was choosing to do was unrealistic when he could choose to do the realistic thing and not hit it there.

And honestly there are other improvements I would like to see over that one.

I never spoke about a wheel, I said flank at the rear (where the engine is). I never said inmobile but to let it clear I will tell you that the entire tank blows up (at least the T-72).

A .50 CAL cannot penetrate the side armor of an old WWII Tiger let alone a modern MBT.

The faulty modelling of the armor is more evident when you use 40mm frag. grenades to disable or blow the tank....in real world it could be like trying to stop a Lincoln Navigator by trowing rotten eggs at it.

Edited: I would also like to actually see the shell flying toward the target...like this: BIG GUNNERY

[jakerod 254]

I know that hitting the flank of a tank is a real world tactic. He was complaining about hitting it in a specific wheel with 50 cal rounds or 40mm grenade rounds and having it become immobile which he says is unrealistic. I am fairly sure that is unrealistic too. I was just saying that if it is unrealistic and he wants to play realistically that he should not be using the tactic.

If it is realistic then there is no problem though.

Also I agree that it should be fixed if it is unrealistic. But as of right now it is not fixed and he was complaining that something that he was choosing to do was unrealistic when he could choose to do the realistic thing and not hit it there.

And honestly there are other improvements I would like to see over that one.

Well that and a whole bunch of others. I've kill M1s with the BRDM's 14.5 and 7.62 machine guns. When you see things like that happened you sort of automatically kick into a non realistic mood and that can't be helped. Deep down you know that is BS and this could not possibly be a simulation. So it ends up changing the entire outlook, respect and feeling for the game.

Why do you do it then if you think it is unreallistic and ruins the game?

Yes, it shouldn't be possible but by doing it you're choosing to ruin the game for yourself. Its similar to saying that cheaters ruin the game and then going and cheating yourself.

If you want the game to be realistic, then play it in a realistic manner. No game is ever going to be realistic if you don't play it realistically.

[sk3pt 0]

I'm curious though, Jakerod, at what point would YOU start complaining about something you felt was not realistic ? Would anything pass ? ...as you would just use your imagination (or limiting actions) to 'fix' the realism aspect ?

[jakerod 254]

I'm curious though, Jakerod, at what point would YOU start complaining about something you felt was not realistic ? Would anything pass ? ...as you would just use your imagination (or limiting actions) to 'fix' the realism aspect ?

First off it isn't using your imagination. You are simply ignoring possible options that you find to be unrealistic. Its not like my mind is blocking the weak point with a giant pink elephant or anything like that.

There are a lot of things that would piss me off. If soldiers could take 500 bullets I would be pissed about that. If they turned it into COD4 or Battlefield (insert #) I would be pissed. If the AI sucked and would do the same thing everytime I would be pissed. Any one of those things I would complain about. I am sure there are more too but I can't think of anything else right now.

EDIT: Sorry for saying wheel I thought that was what you were refering to, but it is the same concept of pieces being weaker than they should be.

[avibird 1 142]

So many of you idiots crack me up. If you want the game to be truly realistic THEN GO OUTSIDE BECAUSE IT'S A GAME.

We don't have SUPER PC's in our homes and it still needs to be balanced to play and YES FUN. ( it's a game boys).

No game is ever going to be truly realistic even NASA SIMULATORS have limitations and inadequacies to the real thing.

BI has made the most realistic war games in the past with OFP/ARMA1. No other games comes close to the overall game experience. Yes there will be things we don't like and some things that look dum but overall it will be the best war game experience you can have with any game on the market for a long time.

If you don't like it then join tha army for real.

AVIBIRD 1 When playing this game keep Chuck Norris home!

If you make the game, They will play!

The truth is out there.

[Fredsas 0]

So many of you idiots crack me up. If you want the game to be truly realistic THEN GO OUTSIDE BECAUSE IT'S A GAME.

We don't have SUPER PC's in our homes and it still needs to be balanced to play and YES FUN. ( it's a game boys).

No game is ever going to be truly realistic even NASA SIMULATORS have limitations and inadequacies to the real thing.

BI has made the most realistic war games in the past with OFP/ARMA1. No other games comes close to the overall game experience. Yes there will be things we don't like and some things that look dum but overall it will be the best war game experience you can have with any game on the market for a long time.

If you don't like it then join tha army for real.

AVIBIRD 1     When playing this game keep Chuck Norris home!

                  If you make the game, They will play!

                  The truth is out there.        

Sorry mate quit making excuses for BIS. You can argue all you want about the game being a good simulation when obviously its not. Maybe you should list the points of no return for when a simulation game becomes an arcade game then we'll see how many of those Arma fails at. Some of the stuff here like vehicle weapons load outs, armour values and bullet damage have nothing to do with the limitations of the engine, so you cant use that excuse.

Tell me, if BIS releases Arma 2 with an M16 mag having 7 bullets in it, and an AK74 having 10, would you call it a simulation? Well that is what they did for a lot of stuff. Like I said before the game turned into Ghost Recon with some vehicles thrown in for fun. That does not in any way make it a combined arms simulation. Just an infantry game with a couple of vehicles.

[7 0]

So many of you idiots crack me up. If you want the game to be truly realistic THEN GO OUTSIDE BECAUSE IT'S A GAME.

We don't have SUPER PC's in our homes and it still needs to be balanced to play and YES FUN. ( it's a game boys).

No game is ever going to be truly realistic even NASA SIMULATORS have limitations and inadequacies to the real thing.

BI has made the most realistic war games in the past with OFP/ARMA1. No other games comes close to the overall game experience. Yes there will be things we don't like and some things that look dum but overall it will be the best war game experience you can have with any game on the market for a long time.

If you don't like it then join tha army for real.

AVIBIRD 1     When playing this game keep Chuck Norris home!

                  If you make the game, They will play!

                  The truth is out there.        

no.

me wanting to play a realistic war sim does not mean i enjoy war in real life.

stop flaming dude.

[jakerod 254]

Hopefully this will be my last post in this topic.

This argument isn't worth the time.

OFP 2 and ArmA 2 aren't out yet and until they are out we will never know which is better.

ArmA clearly isn't a perfect simulation but I bet that OFP II won't be either and probably not ArmA II.

Thing is though ArmA is fun and it has provided me with more hours of entertainment than any other game recently and I would rather have a game I can pick up and have fun playing than a game that takes me three months to learn and simulates every modern world weaponary perfectly even if it was possible.

OFP and ArmA are both realistic enough for me the way they are. The only thing that I really want is better AI and better animations. Beyond that I can deal with the rest of it.

[Fredsas 0]

OFP and ArmA are both realistic enough for me the way they are. The only thing that I really want is better AI and better animations. Beyond that I can deal with the rest of it.

Well that is cool for you Jakerod. You are a casual game player who likes bit of "sense of realism" as opposed to a sim buff who likes attention to details, and a general overview of everything in the game as having a place and function.

However that makes you a bit unaware of the stuff that is actually required and wanted in a simulation game of any particular type. Arma attempts to cover a "Combined-Arms" type of simulation. So even if its simulation of "Infantry" was 100% perfect, that would not make it a decent sim. However if its simulation was 50% evenly across the board on all aspects of a Combined Arms sim, (infantry, vehicles, weapons systems, targeting systems and delivery, etc) that would make it a very good simulation indeed.

If say for instance its infantry aspect was crap. no one would blame you and others for complaining and arguing for better stuff and more immersion. People from the vehicle side, the weapon systems side etc should be given that same respect and ability to voice their complaints, and as a result see changes and innovation. But instead what it happening is that everyone else is ignored. This is important because it has an effect of changing the game from what it stood for. In the general overview of things, a combined arms simulation that goes generation by generation to a infantry simulation is a Devolution, not an Evolution like some people would seem to think. In community terms that means it would probably lose a large part of its fanbase. Which in any event would be bad for BIS.

A lot of people here don't like BF2 for instance, but to hardcore OFP fans, Arma infamously did a very impressive job of moving their beloved simulation game closer to BF2 than anything else. And really, that is just not acceptable.

[avibird 1 142]

BLUFOR and Fredsas let me ask you a question what game mets all your needs. The answer is none. BI makes the best game on the market and no other game comes close to the game experience.

Yes ARMA 1 had some issues when it was first released and now it's running good. Yes it has some deficits but this is not about ARM 1 jackass it's about ARM 2 and BI developing a ture follow up game to OFP.

Just tell me one game that comes close to ARM 1 at this time on any system none. Hopefully ARM 2 will come out of the gates running like it should.

Go buy VBS2 for your home and you will still be a little girl talking crap about all the things that are not real and all the things that look dum and how they should have done this and that.

You guys will never stop to relax and enjoy playing the most

realistic war sim on the market that your money can buy for your home. It's a game on your PC jackass not a NASA SIMULATOR.

PS. please state one game better then OFP/ARM for sim right now on the market.

AVIBIRD 1     When playing this game keep Chuck Norris home!

                  If you make the game, They will play!

                  The truth is out there.

           

[froggyluv 2130]

@Fredsas- well you just can't please everybody. I've read many of your posts now and at what point do you ask yourself "maybe this game aint for me"? Why come here and complain endlessly if you are that antagonistic toward BIS and their products. The game costs the price of a movie with the family- if I don't like the movie, I shrug and move on. I think it's fine to come here with some suggestions and criticisms for BIS, but your overall tone is really patronizing as if the community just don't get it and are apathetic to bettering the game.

[Fredsas 0]

BLUFOR and Fredsas let me ask you a question what game mets all your needs. The answer is none. BI makes the best game on the market and no other game comes close to the game experience.

Yes ARMA 1 had some issues when it was first released and now it's running good. Yes it has some deficits but this is not about ARM 1 jackass it's about ARM 2 and BI developing a ture follow up game to OFP.

Just tell me one game that comes close to ARM 1 at this time on any system none. Hopefully ARM 2 will come out of the gates running like it should.

Go buy VBS2 for your home and you will still be a little girl talking crap about all the things that are not real and all the things that look dum and how they should have done this and that.

You guys will never stop to relax and enjoy playing the most

realistic war sim on the market that your money can buy for your home. It's a game on your PC jackass not a NASA SIMULATOR.

PS. please state one game better then OFP/ARM for sim right now on the market.

AVIBIRD 1     When playing this game keep Chuck Norris home!

                  If you make the game, They will play!

                  The truth is out there.

           

Huh.. sorry, but VBS ain't even that good, and yes I have asked myself if Arma was good enough. and no it wasn't which is why I don't play it anymore. Its simply not worth my time. However yes, this is about Arma 2 as the topic entails Arma 2 vs OFP 2. A topic that encourages criticism jackass

And since Arma 2 looks just like Arma 1 from the ingame footage, the points are very valid. With respect, VBS2 must have some pretty good features in it. Ironically pretty good features that have already been in civilian games for the longest while. For instance I hear they are adding nVidia's PhysX into the game. A civilian technology... a feature which a previous poster thought might be impossible to have in a combined arms simulator.

So when it comes down to it. BIS has all the stuff that decent PC games have in VBS2 and charges $1500 for it and calls it a "Serious Game". Then builds a substandard engine which would be good 5 years ago for the civilian sector? All these things which posters have been asking for have already been put into the VBS2 engine. So what's the big deal with en-cooperating them into Arma and Arma 2 then??