Arma Vs Ofp

[Second 0]

Nope they definitly saw them. I could hear them talking about the guys. I've seen it tons of times. As long as the enemy doesn't spot you the AI will not open fire if given a hold fire command. The RACs guys didnt open fire until the patrol turned around and saw them. All I did was give them a waypoint that said Aware, Limited, Hold Fire.

It's not about opening fire but that they kept steadily walking at spotted enemy. If in 'aware' behaviour mode they should start to use bounding overwatch as combat behaviour .FSM just kicked in (because of spotted enemies).

Well maybe BIS has changed something in 1.14. Haven't much played it.

[memphisbelle 99]

Well, I still have OFP next to ArmA installed on my drive. Why? Just to play it from time to time. And its still fun, so I can actually not agree to say that OFP is dead.

ArmA was primarily made for MP I guess. When I play ArmA with my friends online, it makes much fun, as OFP does. When ArmA was released, it was actually a new game with all its child sicknesses known from other Games they were released (Gothic 3 lots of bugs in example), what made me wonder, cause BIS had a couple of years in expierinces to actually did it better.

Today I know that they was need to release it in that bad status, just to bring it out to avoid bad financiall issues. They made mistakes supporting the community, but they fixed much of that while releasing the Patches. So I have the hope that this expirience will avoid getting the same problems with ArmA2 directly after release.

The bugtracker never seems to be recognized as much as it actually had to be by BIS. The com has reported more than enough to handle with it.

I created a nice MP Mission when the status was still 1.05 for MP and it took a bunch of fun to me and my mates, so far ArmA was and is a good game. But we always have to keep in mind that ArmA was never Game2. ArmA2 shall be Game2 and thats all I will put my expectations in. I hope that BIS has learned from their mistakes and will hopefully support the com much better and faster then they did with ArmA (related to tools, patches aso).

[Pulverizer 1]

What can I say. I still play OFP way more than ArmA, it's just better.

I've spent a little time analyzing this and came up with some possible reasons:

-better mods & content

-nostalgy

-ArmA looks worse (call me crazy but this makes sense to me, honest to Jesus Christ)

-mind refuses to relearn suspension of disbelief in a changed game

-an emotional response to the initial dissappointment

-maybe ArmA has no soul

I don't really know though.

Being rational, clearly ArmA has better tech and more than a couple of nice new features. It's also probably the better game if you never played OFP.

[vilas 477]

assuming my CON/PRO:

OFP :

- revolutioning game, the best in the world

- first in many cattegories

- climate/atmosphere/soul

- realistic armies

- zero problems with game as software

- realistic for it's time

ARMA:

- of course strong graphical engine holding many objects, but it is not comparable to engine made 5 years earlier for much weaker PCs ;]

never fulfilled hopes and most disappointing feeling ever cause:

> advertised as military realistic simulator, but in fact as same real as OFP, eventhoght 5 years passed

> problematic as a software, many people left community when their PC had loosing textures, cubic models, ctd...

for me personally game was unplayable from 1.05 till 1.08

never ever any other game bahaved like this :/

> AI stupid engaging and dying, instead of keeping formation in combat,

> AI staring at empty destroyed Ural and doesn't care that enemy soldier fires at them , cause they are aiming empty Ural

> flying BMP , coliding vehicles

> in my opinion worse path finding, sometimes AI falls of bridge, cause they get out from vehicle on bridge, when enemy opened fire

>AI do not obey orders and decides too much for example in opening fire

> not improved too much AI since OFP, still AA launcher fires at tank, still RPG is used vs. men

> banana-countries and horrible default missions

> rusty rubber tyres, hahahahaha

> product released as not finihshed, doubling mistakes from old OFP (god knowledge AI in first versions) still not fixed things that was fixed by community-addons :/ not by dev. as engine :/

> damn HDR

many players still play OFP and i understand them

i spend few years enjoying OFP, in ARMA i get frustrated when i make missions or play them :[

[Col. Faulkner 0]

[...] <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>A Dream World</span> [...]

FWIW I should like to say that I agree totally with this post,

but short of writing [y]our own "battlefield simulator" from

scratch I can't see how any of this is likely to be realised.

I doubt that futzing around with finite state machines and

scripts is going to deliver it, and ArmA 2, I strongly suspect,

isn't going to give us it either.

In the meantime we have a decent enough toy soldier shooty

game, but a "simulation" it surely ain't. I do envy those who

can play it multiplayer in squads since it's there that I reckon

it could really shine.

YMMV but I prefer ArmA because the models and

environments are nicer and the soldier animations are

somewhat more human than the OFP ones were. ArmA also

runs smoother on my  hardware. There is little to choose

between them in their representation of movement and

behaviour on the battlefield, however.

[Second 0]

Funny thing that i see more this so called fieldcraft in OFP than ArmA. In ArmA AI moves much more straight forward to it's waypoint, while in OFP you could see large circling/evasive movements in sneak if facing enemy (in ArmA i haven't witnessed this, they keep on moving directly at waypoint even if it means that they have to go right under enemy's nose) and AI also tried to not to expose itself against horizon, it seemed to prefer valleys instead of high ground if possible.

I'd say that in OFP AI was given more freedoms. This came with cost. I think few times it took AI 30 minutes to travel 1 kilometer, because it moved next to forests border, while constantly hitting ground... So it kinda like sawed into forest and out from forest all the time. Sometimes in it might even become stucked. But damn! I'm still amused the cleverity and independness of OFP AI.

I agree that current AI commandment system is pretty bad... I've taken few months brake from OFP/ArmA and i've already lost touch to it almost completely.

Ps. Didn't BIS say that they will change it to easier to use (OMG! Blame the consoles! Consoles are form devil!!!11one1one!!! ). I'm happy if they do that. This current could be kept as back up system, but not as primary command tool. And i've heard that waypoints are going to ditched or they atleast don't serve as only way to make troops to move and perform. That is major improvement.

Some sort battle drills, SOPs (whatever) i something for which i've been raving too. Defend, ambush, recon, assault, and flanking as complete multi-men teams should really be implented (plus "pop-up" attacks for light vehicles, like TOW hummers). Another good point is ammo-conserving option.

Anyways. Been playing OFP CWC-campaign with FFUR -85 which has modified SLX... Man that it still rocks hard, and with FFUR it rocks even harder. OFP any day man. Any day.

[Sennacherib 0]

pro ofp:

the game is installed on my pc

con arma:

the game is somewhere in a drawer.

Arma is just not funny, and it has some features that i don't like.

ofp was/is a good compromise between a simulation and a game (funny, easy to play)

[NoRailgunner 0]

Second you should try again OFP without any modification = vanilla OFP. There is no more "cleverity and independness of OFP AI" than in ArmA. They follow commands at all cost - like robots. Most of the time thats fine and team/squad leader can "trust" their AI team. In ArmA its different sometimes they are great, somtimes they are too dumb. Find a solution which AI behavior is the best for all kind of scenarios/missions and how this can be implemented.

"You can please all the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time but you can't please all the people all of the time." - Abraham Lincoln

[Second 0]

Second you should try again OFP without any modification = vanilla OFP. There is no more "cleverity and independness of OFP AI" than in ArmA. They follow commands at all cost - like robots. Most of the time thats fine and team/squad leader can "trust" their AI team. In ArmA its different sometimes they are great, somtimes they are too dumb. Find a solution which AI behavior is the best for all kind of scenarios/missions and how this can be implemented.

No. as far as i can tell SLX introduces mostly just new smallunit tactics (fire and manuver on teams) and suppression/morale model. It doesn't temper with movement routes or such things. They are hard coded features. Which are there in vanilla OFP aswell.

Sure they try to reach their objective, but i'm talking about finding good path to that objective. ArmA is far more straight forward: AI tries to reach waypoint much more direct route. If it's path to waypoint travels right under enemy nose it will move under enemy's nose. It doesn't much seek alternative routes.

In OFP AI steers much more drastically. I spot BMP and tell my men go to some terrain spot past it, they will seek low terrain such as valleys for paths which exposes them less. ArmA too has this ability, however their ability to circle around is much more limited. They have ugly tendensy to try to get past it's nose even if there is valleys they could use as optimal routes. Sometimes they do use terrain skillfully, but with OFP i get much more satisfying  results.

I just spent over hour testing it on both games. Sadly there wasn't identical terrain i could have used. But i think main principle was visible. ArmA was able to sometimes do evasive movements, but mostly i think i saw just idiots in action.

Sure AI tries to get to waypoint in OFP aswell, that is weakness of whole waypoint system in many cases. But path to there is open question, much more open in OFP. While AI's logic seems to be more sound in terms of staying away from harms way. It ain't perfect for sure.

AI seems to seek it's route in some sort of cone. They seem to seek paths in about 45 degree angle to both sides form their location. I'm not sure how it works, but that seems to be the framework of it.

[N'kEnNy 0]

Personally what I miss in ARMA is simply consistent design.

<ul>[*]I hate how your troops are utterly mongoloid (at best of times)

[*]I dislike how poorly simple things like weapon changes/reloads are done.

[*]I loathe the in game UI. (HUD, Game Menu, and Editor) yeech.

[*]Finally I feel that this game lacks spirit!  I mean how difficult would it have been to make the teams actually different from one another?  Not just models but the 'feel'  of how they approach combat.

The spirit of Arma?

Consider default ARMA and the potential it really had(has).  There are three teams, yet they seem to be almost carbon copies of one another. For a game like Arma thats terrible!  There are so many cool in-game mechanics that could have been used.

Imagine if you will

The RACS nation, a former British colony, is attacked by its larger heavily industrialized socialist neighbor. The newly found oil in the southern bits of Sahrani, which should have been the way out of an economically declining state of mostly  tourism and fishermen, proved too tempting to the big brother to the north.

SLA army has recently been investing heavily in retrofitted Russian heavy equipment in addition all male citizens are required to attend 3 months of military service, plus a yearly refresher course, but many stay in for the long haul.  It is a matter of pride to own and maintain your State given kalashnikov.

By contrast the RACS nation is a poor one.  In theory there is a draft open for both men and women, but in practice the nation can only afford to train and equip a fourth of the eligible men and women.  The equipment is mostly older British equipment. SLRs, L4s, and flak armor at best. The nations heavier equipment is mostly second hand American many which it cannot and has not upgraded.

US interests are drawn into this conflict initially due to the very rich and easily obtainable OIL found on the southern islands.  US forces are asked to intervene by an overstretched British military (Afghanistan and Iraq). The total armament available to the United States is titanic in comparison to to the island nations.  Unfortunately  Washington Red-tape combined with increasingly volatile situation in Iraq leaves only a small task force available for intervention.

Quote[/b] ]<span style='font-size:11pt;line-height:100%'>SLA</span>

<ul>[*]Conscripts

The call went out and the sons and fathers answered.  A massive force of conscripts gathered ready to "inhabit" and claim the oil 'rightfully' belonging to the socialist regime.

They are equiped with Flak vests and older kalashnikov rifles.  Poorly maintained and with little training they nonetheless represent a much larger force a nation of that size 'should' have been able to field.

- They are shipped into combat on URAL trucks.

- Without their 'Political officers'  they retreat!

- They are poorly armed; high dispersion on their AKs and few MGs and AT weapons.

[*]Political Officers

Special officers charged with upholding morale and the socialist agenda. Usually deployed as leaders of combat groups or in teams capable of handling tasks of special nature.  Though quite professional trained, doctrine demands that they wear striking uniforms (with blood red markings) on the battle field to embolden their troopers on.  This makes them easy targets.

- Employed in teams or as leaders for other squads.

- When a political officer is in charge of a squad; it is completely fearless!

- Unnecessary parade uniforms and short range weapons.

[*]Motorized Storm Troopers

These are the main stream professional infantry of the SLA army. They practice combined arms using BMPs and a few T-72s  to great effect. As their name suggests they strike hard and quickly and have a doctrinal training which prefers close in combat. Though fewer in number than the conscripts their equipment and training makes them formidable foes.

- BMPs and sometimes Tank support.

- Newer Kalashnikovs, and additional support weapons.

- High End body-armor makes them very resilient.

<span style='font-size:11pt;line-height:100%'>RACS</span>

<ul>[*]Partisan Army:  RACS irregulars

The unsuspecting RACS nation was caught completely by surprise. While the nations resources were concentrate in the south a massive incursion of Armed vehicles and infantry stormed south.   The Partisan army of the RACS is a collection of civilians who managed to get together and form units. Though initially poorly organized, equally armed, and with no logistics to speak of; things change rapidly.  The mainstay arms are SLRs and hunting rifles with a few L4s thrown in.  They have no anti-tank measures they do not capture from the SLA or receive from the Americans.

- No Body Armor, poor resilience.

- Few Specialist weapons. GLs, MG and AT.

- Prefer Long range combat with their excellent SLRs.

[*]RACS Troops

Throughout the conflict  the RACS nation has few military resources to draw upon.  It has few trained professionals, and little in terms of military equipment.  All men and women available are called in. Law enforcement, rentacops, post men even hotel receptionists!  essentially anything with a uniform and a will to fight.  

They are armed much like the Partisan armies and step in to lead them when possible.  They do have the advantage of a unified uniform and bodyarmor.

- Better armed and trained than the irregulars.

- Step in to lead units of irregulars.

- M113's and some helicopters as backup.

<span style='font-size:11pt;line-height:100%'>USA</span>

<ul>[*]Marine Corp

The American forces that step in are at first badly outnumbered. The Island conflict fails to draw large scale media attention and inter-politics at the pentagon leaves the troopers in a desperate situation.  Even so the US forces have the considerable advantage of superior technology, better weapon system, and the all important experience earned in the middle east.

- Exceptionally well armored.

- Optics Aimpoints, Acogs, for everyone.

- Though few in numbers their forces enjoy very high special weapon to trooper ratio.

- A VERY limited supply of superior heavy weapons.

[N'kEnNy 0]

<span style='font-size:11pt;line-height:100%'>INFANTRY IN GAME CHARACTERISTICS</span>

<ul>SLA

<ul>[*]Conscripts

- Must be led by Political officers or they flee.

- With Officer they will charge fearlessly.

- AKM or AK74.  Prefer close combat with their Full-auto weapons.

- Flakvest for 150% Health

- Few special weapons for default squad (1MG, 1AT)

[*]Motorized Infantry

- Supported by BMPs

- Well equipped with AK74ms. sometimes optics. NVGs for leaders.

- Body Armour for 200% Health.

- A high amount of explosive type weapons. GL and AT.

- Will still try to rush into close engagements.

RACS

<ul>[*]Irregulars

- SLRs and L4s for formidable long range firepower.

- No body armour 100% health

- Poorly supported and few AT weapons.

- Prefers ambushes

[*]Regulars

- Nominally better supported

- Body Armour  for 200% Health

- Perhaps a future-weapon?  G36?

US Forces

<ul>[*]Marines

- M16A4 and M4 for select troopers.  Well equipped with Acogs and Aimpoints.

- Few soldiers per squad but exceptionally well armed.

- Default 8 man squad carries  2 Saw, multiple single use AT, medic, and 2xGl.

- Well supported when possible.

GAMEPLAY

And there you have it.  See how by making each team unique and interesting we can actually introduce some FUN game play concepts?  See how commanding a SLA force is different from commanding a US one? or a RACS one?

Asymmetric balance == win

[leondus 0]

pro ofp:

the game is installed on my pc

con arma:

the game is somewhere in a drawer.

Arma is just not funny, and it has some features that i don't like.

ofp was/is a good compromise between a simulation and a game (funny, easy to play)

Some with me, in a drawer

I went out and got ARMA after checking my system at http://www.systemrequirementslab.com/referrer/srtest

and  passed everything with 2-3 bars over min rec.

But after installing it and spending hours downloading patches, the game was slow and unenjoyable.

well, maybe if I dropped $200 on more ram and new video card it would be enjoyable, but who would drop that kind of cash for one game??

If I was BIS, I would have updated OFP keeping everything simple with the thought in mind that not everyone can go out and overhual there computers for just one game.

Look at COMBAT! OFP Addons , Red Hammer Studios or real sky mod.

It could be done.

[Yoma 0]

Well all i can say is that with my 1.5 year old system it runs quite good.

And with all the decent mods coming out lately (ACE, Finmod to name a few), combined with the latest 1.15 patch (byebye jip lag) i think Arma has gotten to a point where i can simply forget all about OFP.

I'm looking forward to Arma2.

Also, PC hardware progresses quite quickly (allthough it looks like VGA performance is at least not doubling every year now) and gamedevelopers have to adapt quickly so people keep buying their games.

For example: i have a 8800 GTX, at toms hardware the average score is 2926.40 for that card. The card is now at least 2 years on the market. The 280 GTX only averages 3765.60  and i think it's about half a year old. That means they raised the bar by not even a 3rd, where as some years ago performance would actually double (if not more) each year.

I know plenty of people that like Arma so much that they'd go and buy a whole new pc if needed.

[Daniel 0]

I agree with Special Ed, the standard AI should be less predictable in firefights. It should either split it's group in half, or leave its machine gunners and use the rest to charge and flank the contact.

EDIT: What N'kEnNy said!

[dm 9]

If I was BIS, I would have updated OFP keeping everything simple with the thought in mind that not everyone can go out and overhual there computers for just one game.

Its good you're not BIS then.

OFP was released 2001, ArmA 2006. The OFP rendering engine is no where near "good enough" for even 2006, let alone 2009... (I know its not 2009 yet, but is only a few days away )

Point is, if BI hadn't updated the graphics engine, there would have been an even bigger outrage. God knows there is already enough complaints about the "poor" graphics...

[Serclaes 0]

Quote[/b] ]

Point is, if BI hadn't updated the graphics engine, there would have been an even bigger outrage. God knows there is already enough complaints about the "poor" graphics...

Realism coffee filter graphics ftw!

[Pulverizer 1]

OFP was released 2001, ArmA 2006. The OFP rendering engine is no where near "good enough" for even 2006, let alone 2009... (I know its not 2009 yet, but is only a few days away )

IMO, they applied them poorly and went way too far with the useless gimmicks like shaders on every leave and grass blade, unrealistic HDR that makes everything look washed out, muddy bump mapping, specular maps etc. The only things I miss about the ArmA gfx in OFP is the shadows, grass layer and support for better texture formats.

I think they could've made the game both look better and have good performance by just slight gfx engine updates. Without all that state-of-the-art crap they could've done photographic textures instead of cartoon drawings with fancy fx applied in real time. Would've looked more real than the Mickey Mouse shiny plastic gfx of ArmA and had better performance.

ArmA2 seems to have improved on the gfx style though but meh... Remains to be seen if most people can actually play with all that fx active.

[baddo 0]

I think there are improvements in the artificial intelligence in Armed Assault when comparing to Operation Flashpoint. For example, when I started to play the Armed Assault Demo, I already felt that the artificial intelligence enemy was flanking me more intelligently and I got surprised more on average than when playing Operation Flashpoint. This is just a feeling and not "measured". But the initial feeling about the artificial intelligence was that it has been improved. So I don't quite get it when people say that it is worse or that there is no difference. Because to me there was a difference right when I started to play the demo.

One thing people probably should pay more attention to is the fact that if you play as the leader of a team which consists of you and artificial intelligence soldiers, you really need to command your team-mates pretty much all the time to make your team effective.

When you are a member of a team which has an artificial intelligence leader, you must notice that the team leader is saying a lot of commands. Now, when you take the leadership, you are required to do the same if you want the team to be as effective as when under the leadership of the artificial intelligence. If you fail to command your team as much as the artificial intelligence leader does, then don't be surprised if you feel that you have dumb team-mates and that the artificial intelligence in Armed Assault is overall dumb.

This is an area in which Bohemia Interactive should do more research and work to improve it. It is easily seen that it is not a small task at all. How to make the artificial intelligence soldiers, when under your command, be smart, but not break your command at the same time? Because real soldiers are often able to make intelligent decisions independently of their team leader, while in games like Operation Flashpoint or Armed Assault this rarely is true. Thus the need for you to "micro manage" the artificial intelligence soldiers who are under your command.

In Armed Assault your team which consists of you as the team leader and of artificial intelligence soldiers, can be very effective but it requires a lot of time in a mission to manage them effectively. As an example a situation in which you are approaching enemy positions, possibly a town or a camp. You need to carefully observe the situation, locate the enemy, keep your soldiers from firing their weapons, make sure they are positioned safely, then bring them close-enough to the enemy and position them into good firing positions, assign them targets, wait that they all report "ready to fire", and then you can start firing at the enemy. If you go through all the time and effort to do all that, then your team can be unbeatable against artificial intelligence enemy groups (although I have to say you need open ground for this to work well). The problem with this careful approach is that it is slow, and I guess not many players are willing to spend all that time managing their soldiers. This is an area where improvements can clearly be made, but as I said, how to do it so that your artificial intelligence team-mates who are under your command, appear to be smart but still under your command? It is a difficult task if you think about it, how would you as a game developer do it.

Regarding which game is better for me, Operation Flashpoint or Armed Assault, I will not make a final comment on that yet. The initial impression of Operation Flashpoint was more positive. There were not any bugs that I noticed when playing through its official campaigns and missions (I really started playing OFP in Spring 2002 if I recall correctly, so it was a bit patched already by that point). The Cold War Crisis campaign is by far the best campaign I have ever played on these two games. And the textures were all there, nothing was missing as far as I know. In Armed Assault many computers, even much faster computers than the one I have, seem to struggle in keeping the resources, such as textures, ready for use. But I can't make a judgement on this as my computer has not been upgraded to fulfill the requirements set by Bohemia Interactive.

[Lepardi 0]

Operation Flashpoint: Cold War Crisis > Armed Assault

Better atmosphere, AMAZING CAMPAIGN, and much better gameplay creamed with terribly good music.

Flashpoint singleplayer was an experience that I will remember for the rest of my life, while ArmA was just 'meh', and quit after a few missions.

[Second 0]

I think there are improvements in the artificial intelligence in Armed Assault when comparing to Operation Flashpoint. For example, when I started to play the Armed Assault Demo, I already felt that the artificial intelligence enemy was flanking me more intelligently and I got surprised more on average than when playing Operation Flashpoint. This is just a feeling and not "measured". But the initial feeling about the artificial intelligence was that it has been improved. So I don't quite get it when people say that it is worse or that there is no difference. Because to me there was a difference right when I started to play the demo.

Hard to say about flanking, they do flank but so did OFP's AI. It is also able to do just the same thing as OFP does, sending individual AI's to suicide frontal assaults without anykind support. In ArmA this might not stand out as much as AI can fire it's rifles to much longer distances (and with deadly accuracy). Lone infantry guy sent to frontal assault might not stand out as much as there loads of lead comming at player forcing him either to die, shoot or hide. And AI sees also better, in OFP it was pretty blind. I remember in vanilla OFP shooting AI at about 500-600 meters with sniper rifle, while it didn't seem to have a glue what is happening where they get shot at and what to do (few tried to attack me frontally after spotting me but i naturally killed them). Killed over 40 of them with that. Tried that in ArmA, died in 5-10 seconds after first shot.

I can't say are they flanking more than frontal assaulting in ArmA. But i'd speculate that it's terrain wise, and process how path to target is defined happens just like in OFP.

Forexample ArmA demo offered area where flanking is very much possible by using forests and such.

[Daniel 0]

Flanking goes hand in hand with suppressive fire. If the AI doesn't suppress, any attempt to flank is going to be very dicey.They should keep their units to around 4 men, so 4 attack/flank whatever while the rest put down covering fire.

[-Total- 0]

Good lord!

It's been three years and there's still ArmA vs OFP threads popping up??!?!?

OFP - Ground Breaking as there was nothing else like it

ArmA - came to a market where, now that everyone has been introduced to many different things, expects the ultimate game even though the computers in 2005 could not handle everything they wanted.

There will NEVER be another game like OFP.

The could release OFP on a better graphics engine and it still would not be as good as the first.

[ArmaVidz 0]

I didn't play OFP very much, due to not having decent hardware at the time, but from what I recall, when you opened fire on the Ai, they hunted you forever.

There was a spec ops mission where you assault a town and when you opened fire, there was armor that would patrol and check every nook and cranny of that town (interior excluded). I never saw that armor bumping into houses repeatedly or turning back and forth wildly with the hull and seperately freaking out with its turret.

The only thing I don't like about ARMA I Ai is that after a very short period of time, Ai forget they were fired at - or it "seems" that way.

[TWCRASH 0]

I love OFP. So I am biased. And yes if you use some of the great mods out there for OFP it can rival ArmA in weapons, hands and some of the vehicles. Arma does have OFP beat on the island foilage and overall look. But when you play WGL or FFUR or FDF or other mods OFP is still awesome and runs great. The CTI missions are still great fun and if you are new to OFP (which I am a adolescent to) You will NEVER play and complete all the missions that are available for download to play. I just reinstalled ArmA and started playing it to test this 115 beta patch and i am warming up to ArmA a lil but I can honestly say... it aint OFP

[KorpeN 0]

Whats the point of a topic like that?OFP was a good game,ARMA was better.

Whoever likes OFP go play OFP.

Whoever likes ArmA go play ArmA.

OFP had a good single player.But single player is useless.

Thats why ArmA is better.Cause it has better multiplayer.

ArmA of course is more realistin.OFP is like arcade in front of ArmA.

I love OFP but what the fuck you OFP maniacs?Enough....