Latest ArmA2 & ArmA2:OA Press Coverage | NO discussion here!

[cm 0]

The last preview vid's had some bad sounds.

Now these guys records a vid while playing with 5 fps..

Lol. Someone needs to post a vid with a happy medium. It's either distorted sound or unplayable FPS...

[KorpeN 0]

You're a very pessimistic person, aren't you?

It's obvious those videos don't showcase ArmA II how it's supposed to be. There definitely should not be that much slowdown if they're playing it on a decent rig, hence why all other trailers look fine in terms of framerate. Plus, that website gave it a score of 81%, which is fairly higher than what big magazines like PC Gamer US (72%, if I recall correctly) gave ArmA. So obviously, BIS must be doing something right.

Pessimistic?

Do you believe that your pc will run ArmA2 with max settings?

The Pcs of the reviewers are mid-high systems.All the previews shows the same bad graphics.What can I suppose except of bad optimization?

ArmA looks way better than ArmA2.

WOW 91%.Thats something.Maybe I must not believe what I see in the screens and the vids.I will believe just a number.

91% very good job BIS.

Edited April 23, 2009 by KorpeN

[Raphier 0]

My apologies, heh. I didn't see that originally.

Anyways, that's 1% more than the score that OFP: Game of the Year got from PC Gamer US. Now doesn't that sound like BIS are doing it right?

Edit: Damn you Raphier. :butbut:

Ok, sorry :rolleyes: I mislooked the 91%, I don't know where it came from, but this preview did not show any official scores, just user ratings

[Placebo 29]

Ok Ptolemaios that's enough trolling, either start being constructive or find a new home for your venom.

[Zipper5 74]

Pessimistic?

Do you believe that your pc will run ArmA2 with max settings?

The Pcs of the reviewers are mid-high systems.All the previews shows the same bad graphics.What can I suppose except of bad optimization?

ArmA looks way better than ArmA2.

Yes, I do believe it will. I run ArmA at full settings at 1440x900 resolution with 2km VD at the moment and I get between 30 and 120 FPS. And I have yet to see any bad graphics apart from Tiscali's preview. But you should not be basing ArmA II off of graphics. I'm surprised that people do, but I guess that's how major gaming corporations rope in their customers...

Edit: Sorry Placebo, just saw your post.

[Raidar 1]

The person who made this "firefight" video, seems to be a little over convident in his hardware :j: (or the game runned in this state quite different on different hardware specs or or or whatever)

feels like 2-5 fps, so no miracle there's lod problems. Difficult to judge about anything in this 2 little clips.

I like the grenade explosion. Is there after the explosion, the sound of little stones/dirt raining? I'm not sure, sound like something burning for a short time.

But i think the handling of the game at low fps is much better now! It runs horribly, but the movement isn't that bad.

Looking forward to some gameplay media, high resolution, fluently running, graphics on max and some choosen pictures, not just some little test. This media salade of the alpha version is kind of unprofitable for the mood of many.

Edited April 23, 2009 by Ra!dar

[Raphier 0]

It means when someone posts something exceptionally inane, I sometimes cannot stop the sarcasm part of my brain from replying ;)

:annoy:

Back to Ibiza, placebo!

Edited April 23, 2009 by Raphier

[KorpeN 0]

It means when someone posts something exceptionally inane, I sometimes cannot stop the sarcasm part of my brain from replying ;)

That was sarcasm?You have to try harder.

I thought that you speak honestly about Ibiza cause thats what ArmA2 screens and vids say until now.That BIS doesnt work.:)

[Placebo 29]

I get the message then, you have no wish to be a constructive part of the community. Wish granted.

[cm 0]

That was sarcasm?You have to try harder.

I thought that you speak honestly about Ibiza cause thats what ArmA2 screens and vids say until now.That BIS doesnt work.:)

lol, you just walked into that one....

Looking at the previews... the AI seemed to be behind cover at least. The AI on the right was behind a car, and no one was in the middle of the road, all on the side AND facing opposite directions (so I assume covering thier arcs). Still kinda lame how they seem to rotate on the spot but the reaction times are no where near as bad as the other video, which is promising.

Edited April 23, 2009 by cm

[bobocz 10]

Video on sector.sk is probably laggy because reviewer rig is AMD X2 4400 ATI X2600XT 2GB RAM. And he quite enjoy playing, only he notice he has problem with some missing textures, that you can see on one video.

edit: Another think I want to add, that you can enjoy game even with less than mediocore system and it's quite pleasure read preview with more positive attitude and don't try underline only bad thing on preview version of game. He said after he will play final version of game, he summarize good, bad things.

Edited April 23, 2009 by BoboCZ

[Sniperwolf572 758]

Once being a part of a relatively small or nonprofit gaming site, and knowing how things in such places work, you can't assume any kind of configuration or setup.

Most PC reviews and previews are done with the resources the reviewer has at home, and as such, many issues arise because not many people have top of the line configurations, the computers can be plagued with malware, lack of maintenance, etc.

On the other hand, big gaming sites probably have in office reviewing PC setups which can run games in very decent quality and setting and as such result in better imagery.

Even tho I can't claim to know how either reviewing sites that reviewed A2 work, you can see pretty distinct quality of images between IGN and Tiscali.

[cm 0]

Video on sector.sk is probably laggy because reviewer rig is AMD X2 4400 ATI X2600XT 2GB RAM. And he quite enjoy playing, only he notice he has problem with some missing textures, that you can see in one video.

Wow, that's pretty good if it's running on a 2600XT!!!! Those things are a POS compared to current gen hardware, which would explain the shite fps and texture lag.

Edited April 23, 2009 by cm

[twisted 128]

This media salade ot the alpha version is kind of unprofitable for the mood of many.

i agree on this. until recently Arma2's build up from BIS has been great but coverage from certain previews and a handful pretty ordinary shots taken from low-end rigs have taken quite a bit of sheen off what was looking really great.

Hope to see some better footage on the level of dyslexi's shared still shots as people do base a big impression of a game on its graphics.

also hope to see more of the 'big' features showcased in depth - preferably from BIS who can focus on getting the best seen.

I hope BIS take control here as otherwise this game risks being henpicked almost to death before it is release.

oh, and lol at some previewers who seem to be rambos who wander the middle of the street zooming in often.

[7 0]

Lol, at the firefight video, like of all time 90% he/she was playing zoomed in (seems like stuff are like in arma, too tiny to shoot :D) and dies of typical arma AI, lying on a floor. Overally, these one's seemed to like what they saw.

Yeah, I think having a zoom feature is the cause firefights don't last very long.

[sk3pt 0]

I think that video looks awesome, just imagine it running smoothly ! This game will not only be the ultimate military simulation, it will be the ultimate game. :D

Edited April 24, 2009 by sk3pt

[Barely-injured 0]

Wow, that's pretty good if it's running on a 2600XT!!!! Those things are a POS compared to current gen hardware, which would explain the shite fps and texture lag.

:eek:

Actually the AI seems good too. They were both trying to seek cover and the second one seems to have shot few rounds then ran away all they way through those houses until he reached his partner who killed the player. At least that is how i saw it.

And if ArmA I and system requirements for ArmA II are any indication then the AI will probably function considerably worse in low FPS, which says a lot about that video.

[Scrub 0]

Yeah, I think having a zoom feature is the cause firefights don't last very long.

Hanging out in zoom, yes, definately. But I consider the zoom more of a 'squint' trying to focus and percieve things in the distance.

Great news of this running on older hardware!

(anybody see the rainbow in the latest Slovak pics? :p)

[Raidar 1]

Yeah, I think having a zoom feature is the cause firefights don't last very long.

But i think the zoom option is important, because i can't afford a full HD screen and the PC hardware to run all on high. Aiming throug iron sights at a man sized target at 300m is no problem, but in arma you won't see the target.

The problem of short firefights is nobody is afraid to get pierced by bullets and die maybe...

Back to topic:

Hearing what hardware its playable on with quite high specs is nice! Nearly (if not all) of this game pages, just don't play games like ArmA, don't now what they are, how can they review it... But it seems that it catches the eye of some of them, what is a good sign! They get interrested even it's just a "buggy alpha". But all in all i think it's a bad publicity. Like giving a kid a brand new camera and tell him to make a review of it, showing of what wonderfuel pictures you can get with it...

[aus_twisted 0]

They were probably using fraps to capture those vids and by the looks of it dont have the hardware to do so properly as fraps needs extra CPU power and fast HDD's to record properly... you really need a Raid 0 setup to capture high res videos with fraps (especially in games like ArmA/Flight Sim etc)

[stanko 10]

It's important to make a huge list of available options which can be turned on/off in game difficulty, because this is how BIS can easily attract wide audience without loosing hardcore realism for experienced players. For example, some people won't play ArmA2 because some situations are too realistic for them, but if they can avoid getting killed with one bullet, they would enjoy it.

Some "on/off" ideas: zoom option, after healing some part of the body it's not anymore in shape like before getting wounded (decreased accuracy and running).

[DrBobcat 0]

But zoom, unlike many elements of the UI, can be avoided simply by not being used. I can understand why some may not want to use it, but adding it to the difficulty menu seems frivolous.

Your second idea is much better.

- dRb

[stanko 10]

I can agree with that.

[Przemek_kondor 14]

look at 1:12 (on the new video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4bQQHTj7FI ) - on the windows you can see reflections

[Shadow NX 1]

Lately this thread is perfect if you want to raise your blood pressure a bit as we attract some trolls here that make me wish i could e-strangle people...

Especially things like "Yeah BIS doenst work"... Yeah we see that perfectly, people like him would make a somethign like ArmA2 within a week and then absolutely bug free i assume :)

Last Videos posted, well as said before it seems it ran on a mid spec pc and i guess the video was recorded directly ingame via Fraps or something so that also costs a lot of performance.

Proffessional gaming sites take the video directly from the cards output so that doesnt influence the performance.

To all the whiners, feel free to criticise but do it in a mature matter and keep things realistic... yes we all want a ton of new features and all that as bug free as possible but not all of this can be done as -and that was said often before- BIS isnt EA and has only limited ressources and manpower.

Some of those who moan the loudest might think about how it is to sleep at the office and work nearly the whole day as the "crunch time" phase is now reached and the product needs to be finnished.

That also leads to one thing, if BIS adds all that that was requested lately it automaticly leads to less time testing the new features which also leads to many new bugs... feel free to think about it.