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

[Fred DM 0]

Who rated it 4/10?

PC Action, but they're not exactly held in high regard... ;)

still, PC Games and GameStar are the two biggest game publications in german speaking europe, and they are respected (unlike, say, PC Action, Bravo Screenfun or ComputerBild Spiele).

besides, it's not like bugs or bad design choices are a matter of taste. if they're there, they're there. hence GameStar criticise that even though they like the series and have cut ArmA 2 some huge slack already by postponing the final verdict, including the beta patch in the testing, doing an extended review over several days, and also pointing out that it would be awesome if it weren't so broken. ;)

[maxter 10]

i think some of you guys seriously need to stop with the elititst attitute; it's unbearable, and it doesn't help the community at all. :j:

don't act as if you are the only ones who 'get' ArmA. professional reviewers are (in most cases) hardcore gamers as well. especially in Germany, where the OpF series has a huge fanbase, many reviewers are OpF veterans. they know what the game is about and how it must be approached.

it's ridiculous how everytime a negative opinion is voiced or a negative review comes in, some people here always get riled up and instantly defend the game (which they may not even have played yet because they don't live in german speaking europe) and at the same time discredit the reviewers, whom they know even less about.

at the same time, any positive 'review' given by an anonymous user is taken for the ultimate truth. double standards anyone? :j:

I agree to a degree, however when the good features of a game is completely overlooked in a review, it doesn't give a professional impression IMO. I'm not saying this is the case in every negative review or something like that, just putting it out there.

Of course the retardation of Morphicon and their early release isn't a good thing, and it's a shame they couldn't just release the finished version with the rest of the EU.

4/10 feels a bit awkward though, which I believe those who have played the game agrees with, makes me wonder how they played the game (in a non-elitist way of course), and if some bug fixes would really boost the score all that much. Well, that's up to them (reviewer/s).

Edited May 30, 2009 by maxter

[whisper 0]

You have to give credit to GameStar for having a very in depth look at the game. If you understand German and actually read what they have to say (and they write a lot about it) you will see, that they have a very good idea what Arma is about and how huge and complex it is. And if you watch their GameStar TV video you can clearly see that they so much would like to like it (obviously they are fans) and how fustrated and angry they are about the state of the game. They give very harsh criticism that is not only about bugs that will eventually be fixed, but also about game mechanics that simply don't work for the game (team communication for example). Their overall criticism, that the game can not handle it's own complexity, I can sadly only agree with after having played it for two days.

What is wrong with comms? I can't see how that breaks a game

[bravo 6 0]

From what i eared the voices look strange when single and different words are combined in order to create a phase. The words look fine but when they are combined or glued to each other, they sound strange. About the complete and already made phrases in one simple file, look more natural as expected.

i know its hard to make a natural phrase by using and connecting different words. But there are already good programs that already do it and sound naturally.

For example this text to Speech

Its only the feeling and immersion that can be different.

[MBot 0]

What is wrong with comms? I can't see how that breaks a game

As it is now they are pretty useless. Some example:

"Two, target that officer." - What officer, where are I am supposed to look for it? You can't say "What officer? Give me some directions".

"Two, enemy man, to the right, far" - What is the orientation of the "right"? I had people saying "behind" but it would have been ahead, just because they were looking in a different direction at that time. How far is "far" supposed to be? That little clock from OFP/ArmA that can be used as a reference of the clock-position has been removed, which makes any position report useless at it is in Arma 2. Either you see them on your own or you don't, but the AI position reports could be anywhere depending on their own orientation.

"Two, go to that house" - I am in a citty, where is that supposed to be?

"Two, go to that tree" - I am in a forest, where am I supposed to go?

Etc. Situation awareness is terrible. A pretty serious issue in a game where you are supposed to fight as part of a team or even are supposed to fulfill orders of your AI leader. That is one of the criticism of the GameStar review.

[armored_sheep 56]

"Two, target that officer." - What officer, where are I am supposed to look for it? You can't say "What officer? Give me some directions".

AI did give you such order and no visual guidance like target icon apeared on regular dificulty settings? thats strange.

I also dont understand how come that player got order from AI comander to move near some house or plant. Theese orders can be heard only if player makes them.

[MBot 0]

AI did give you such orders and no visual guidance like waypoint or target icon apeared on regular dificulty settings? thats strange.

I am playing without such cues, expecting that the game is designed to work well also when you play without such aides. Same assumption was done by GameStar.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Doesn't waypoints show up as a red line marking the direction in the compass?

Describing situational awareness as useless is remarkable, considering you don't want to utilize the help the engine offers.

[^Th0mas^ 10]

IMO Gamestar are a bunch of loosers. They flamed ArmA II at release, and they also flamed OfP Dragon Rising, even tough it was a preview alpha hands on, saying stuff like they probably would not get the game ready to release. Retards really....

[dreday 1]

IMO Gamestar are a bunch of loosers. They flamed ArmA II at release, and they also flamed OfP Dragon Rising, even tough it was a preview alpha hands on, saying stuff like they probably would not get the game ready to release. Retards really....

I don't know... they sound pretty objective to me; maybe even to a fault... To be fair, ARMA 2 is an extremely rough and overwhelming product. Hopefully they will come back to it in a few months when they are more familiar with it and more bugs have been fixed.

Peace,

DreDay

[lapa 1]

IMO Gamestar are a bunch of loosers. They flamed ArmA II at release, and they also flamed OfP Dragon Rising, even tough it was a preview alpha hands on, saying stuff like they probably would not get the game ready to release. Retards really....

Be that as it may, their disappointed review of the German version is factually correct. Whether the reviewer likes the game or not is ultimately subjective anyway. You still can't deny the reasons (i.e the heap of bugs) Gamestar has given for the low score. You may of course be of the opinion that they have blown the glitches' signifigance out of proportion.

Or, optionally, you can spew curse words. Whatever you find constructive.

[lapa 1]

Hopefully they will come back to it in a few months when they are more familiar with it and more bugs have been fixed.

Peace,

DreDay

Actually, this is exactly what the most prominent game review magazine (Pelit) in Finland does. Sometimes when it reviews a game that clearly has huge potential, but is very buggy and unfinished, they leave out the final score and write a follow-up review if and when the game has been patched to an enjoyable state.

[The Masta 0]

In my opinion the whole "Oh my god, it has bugs" thing is just a farce. See when they tested ArmA (which was like 4 million times more buggy) they didn't do a test diary, when they tested GTA4 they didn't do a test diary. Now with ArmA 2 which has the lowest amount of bugs of the three they do one?

I mean what the hell.

[MBot 0]

Here is the current lineup of the GameStar review special:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Preliminary Conclusion

Tech Check

GameStar TV

They continue to test the 1.01beta Version and will publish their final score in the next days. They are also going to check out multiplayer. Pretty extensive coverage, I think no one can say they didn't check it out in depth.

[Steakslim 1]

In my opinion the whole "Oh my god, it has bugs" thing is just a farce. See when they tested ArmA (which was like 4 million times more buggy) they didn't do a test diary, when they tested GTA4 they didn't do a test diary. Now with ArmA 2 which has the lowest amount of bugs of the three they do one?

I mean what the hell.

Third time's the charm I guess. At least it shows they're learning...sort of.

Edited June 1, 2009 by Steakslim

[Fred DM 0]

In my opinion the whole "Oh my god, it has bugs" thing is just a farce. See when they tested ArmA (which was like 4 million times more buggy) they didn't do a test diary, when they tested GTA4 they didn't do a test diary. Now with ArmA 2 which has the lowest amount of bugs of the three they do one?

I mean what the hell.

uhm, they're actually doing ArmA 2 a huge favour by doing that. the diary entries describe certain aspects of the game, in good as well as in bad. they're also inlcuding the v1.01beta version of the game, not the v1.00 retail version. plus, you can clearly make out that they like the series and would like ArmA 2 to succeed.

the review diary happens to be a new format and may very well return in the future.

in general, the larger the review, the more important the game.

now, whether ArmA 2 really has a lower amount of bugs than GTA4 (PC), might be up for debate...

[dreday 1]

Etc. Situation awareness is terrible. A pretty serious issue in a game where you are supposed to fight as part of a team or even are supposed to fulfill orders of your AI leader. That is one of the criticism of the GameStar review.

Sad, but true. I wouldn't say terrible, but it is pretty bad. What get's to me is that there is absolutely nothing realistic about this whole "Man, to the left, far away" lingo - that is definitely not how the professional soldiers give out the target reference. I really don't get why this feature was introduced in the first place.

Another thing that annoys me about the command system is that the AI is seemingly uncontrollable when they go into their CQB mode. This happens when they are in Danger or Stealth mode - they will run around, crouch, scan multiple directions, yell “Covering†(all of which are a definite improvement over OFP and ARMA)... Here is the problem though... they are not covering me; they are covering an arbitrary direction that they have chosen. Moreover, I cannot tell them that I covering them now; so this whole leap-fogging overwatch tactic completely loses its meaning. In the end I feel like a spectator rather than a squad leader. In my opinion, this very badly breaks up the immersion factor and quite frankly kills the fun factor for me as well.

Having said that, I can definitely see that the developers had put a ton of effort into this game, and I am impressed with a lot of the things that I see in it. They definitely got more things right than wrong. ARMA 2 has a ton of potential! Hopefully these kinds of control and situational awareness issues could be worked out in the subsequent patches.

Peace,

DreDay

[CarlGustaffa 4]

IMO Gamestar are a bunch of loosers. They flamed ArmA II at release, and they also flamed OfP Dragon Rising, even tough it was a preview alpha hands on, saying stuff like they probably would not get the game ready to release. Retards really....

I would probably also 'flame' Arma2 if it was as bad as what I read, not only on gamestar, but from many of the posters here. And I'm a fan! Most (if not all, and then some) of the issues they brought up makes perfect sense. Apparently the tester is also a fan of hard core mode, which prevented him from getting all the ingame help on some of the issues he mentioned. Personally I don't like to play singleplayer without these aids, as they feel to me designed to help out with much of the informational stuff that the AI can not provide in a good fashion. Maybe he should have tested in regular mode instead and used these 'cheats', and gotten a better experience out of it?

Arma2 isn't finished yet, and I sure hope the issues mentioned are adressed for the EU release. I hope BIS never does business with that company ever again! Although highly tempting, I won't spend any money with them, ever. BIS/Arma2 doesn't deserve being slaughtered because of a distribution companys greedyness to make more money than their competitors by getting it out prematurely.

Haven't checked the OFP DR review yet, but I'll look for it. With that game being 'limited' (at least the official missions) to 8 player coop mode, I'd say it's no longer a coop oriented game. And I suspect the better physics (compared to Arma/Arma2) is the reason for this limitation (hard to synchronize the effects over many clients).

[Scrub 0]

AI did give you such order and no visual guidance like target icon apeared on regular dificulty settings? thats strange.

I also dont understand how come that player got order from AI comander to move near some house or plant. Theese orders can be heard only if player makes them.

Pretty early on in the SP Campaign, I was ordered to move up to a house.. Pretty sure of it, anyway. On veteran mode I still have some indicators for targets, as well.

To the MBot:

Have to get your head in the game for the situational awareness. Look around, note attack vectors, see where your teammates are laying fire.. it all counts.

Edited June 2, 2009 by Scrub
clairity

[dreday 1]

AI did give you such order and no visual guidance like target icon apeared on regular dificulty settings? thats strange.

No self respecting OFP veteran would play on regular difficulty setting :P However it does not mean that we should be penalized with the unrealistic and frankly - dumb restrictions on higher difficulty levels. Modern combat is complex enough as it is. There is no need to make it unnecessarily complicated...

I also dont understand how come that player got order from AI comander to move near some house or plant. Theese orders can be heard only if player makes them.

I have just replayed the first single mission (the one where you are fighting to capture Utes) and my leader was definitely telling me to move to houses and trees.

Peace,

DreDay

Edited June 2, 2009 by DreDay

[dreday 1]

To the MBot:

Have to get your head in the game for the situational awareness. Look around, note attack vectors, see where your teammates are laying fire.. it all counts.

That's all good advice, but it should not make up for the poor situational awareness on the higher difficulty levels. That is something that needs to be fixed by the developers... especially since it was not broken neither OFP nor ARMA ;)

Peace,

DreDay

[froggyluv 2130]

Alright I know I'm way OT here but since you guys are talking situational awareness, is it just me or do the top/bottom coordinates not show on the map when in-game?

[EricM 0]

About communication and situational awareness, could they change the reference system from "leader centric" to "player centric" :

ie : change "Target that enemy officer on the left" to "Target that enemy officer ON YOUR LEFT/RIGHT/BACK" ?

In that way you would not have to translate mentally "ok, where's my leader, he's facing roughly the opposite direction, ok, then his right is my left, so I need check THAT direction"...

[whisper 0]

Isn't it relative to squad general direction? In which case, provided you stick with your team and know the target, you should be relatively fine.

funnily enough, it looks very much like what we used in scrimm games on other titles to communicate between players :p

[MBot 0]

Isn't it relative to squad general direction? In which case, provided you stick with your team and know the target, you should be relatively fine.

Perhaps, but then the code to determine squad direction is not realy up to the task. I had enemy reported as behind when they were front, left when right etc. even when our direction of advance was very clear (following a road for 5 minutes). I have the impression though that the reference system is always of the reporting unit.