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

[cm 0]

GameStar have now posted their review and verdict of ArmA 2 (v1.01): 66%.

they criticise mainly the unfinished state of the game (bugs), the cheating and inconsistent AI and the antiquated physics. they praise the graphics, the scale and variety, the single player content (tainted by bugs, though), and the fascinating potential that the game has. they hope that additional patches will improve the game and consider a re-review if they do.

http://www.gamestar.de/test/action/taktik-shooter/1956645/arma_2.html

I think that is pretty fair. I know that BIS will fix all the bugs eventually, but 66% seems ok given that it does have a solid foundation and great potential but is very unpolished (although better than arma1).

I know what I'm buying come June 19th :D

[Steakslim 1]

They see the potential there, so I say the score is fair, especially if they're willing to do more reviews on the game later on as the patches rub out the nasty bugs that the game currently has.

[sparks50 0]

Whats up with Gamestar BTW? They post so many videos and articles about Arma... Do they cover every game this way?

I look to the CM forums, where GS have reclaimed a video from a DR fansite, even though the gameplay footage was given by CM itself(?). crazy Germans :p

[Barely-injured 0]

hey when is the Czech version released again was it not supposed to be tomorrow (the 7th) or am I mistaken ?

Just wondering when the Czech media will start reviewing it.

[Fred DM 0]

Whats up with Gamestar BTW? They post so many videos and articles about Arma... Do they cover every game this way?

certainly not. they have given ArmA 2 extraordinary coverage, which shows that they like the game in principal and recognize the significance it has in the pc gaming market.

[Undeceived 392]

They know what OFP was! I don't want to say that Arma 2 was hyped, but it was anticipated.

And the press attention to the game is so big because the game itself is so big and extensive. And I said it already, this is the sadest of the situation: Such a big press echo but such a miserable and crippled beginning...

Another reason for the game being covered so much (but this is pure speculation and probably not true, but who knows...):

The game magazines have enough of unfinished games being released (in the tests of the game they also say this some times) and maybe by reporting so devastately and extensively about A2 they want to make sure that this is absolutely unacceptable (which I absolutely support!).

[max power 21]

The game magazines have enough of unfinished games being released (in the tests of the game they also say this some times) and maybe by reporting so devastately and extensively about A2 they want to make sure that this is absolutely unacceptable (which I absolutely support!).

And unfortunately, no doubt BIS gets the short end of the stick there and not Morphicon.

[Overwhelming 10]

And unfortunately, no doubt BIS gets the short end of the stick there and not Morphicon.

I confess I'm more worried about the cheating AI than the bugs. I really hope they will keep fixing the game.

The bugs I'm sure they will be dealt with. I mean, if they don't, they can't even publish the game for consoles! We're just beta testing the game for consoles. ;)

[mant3z 1]

I confess I'm more worried about the cheating AI than the bugs. I really hope they will keep fixing the game.

The bugs I'm sure they will be dealt with. I mean, if they don't, they can't even publish the game for consoles! We're just beta testing the game for consoles. ;)

That can be true and that is quite good news (if it's real).

If you've right then BIS must really work by the sweat of one's brow with next patches to release ArmA2 on consoles ASAP.

[The Masta 0]

The game magazines have enough of unfinished games being released (in the tests of the game they also say this some times) and maybe by reporting so devastately and extensively about A2 they want to make sure that this is absolutely unacceptable (which I absolutely support!).

That must be the reason that gamestar gave GTA4 90+% and didn't even mention bugs.

[Fred DM 0]

That must be the reason that gamestar gave GTA4 90+% and didn't even mention bugs.

and they had to take a lot of flak for it. same with Gothic 3. now they are starting to turn around, and ArmA 2 is suffering because of it. tough luck, but it's not like they're lying about the bugs in ArmA 2.

also, some of the bugs in ArmA 2 are the same ones we've had in ArmA and in OpF. 8 years old. no other game has that, except maybe Age of Pirates 2, which was totally torn apart critically.

[mr.g-c 6]

That must be the reason that gamestar gave GTA4 90+% and didn't even mention bugs.

As much as im a BIS games fan, i disagree here!

I played GTA4 on the release Date and it was much much Fun and i never encountered one single Bug i can remember.

So there were no gameplay braking things at all! Thats for sure in the case for me and my one Brohter. We played GTA4 even countless hours in LAN game and it was much much fun (especially if you had some beer before :p )

Arma2 is full of Gamplay breaking Bugs!

AI heavy bugged, Campaign terribly bugged, MP bugged, performance and engine bugged, etc.

Im sorry to say but they completely screwed the german release and the 66% are fully justified! Its even worse bugged than Arma1 was at some spots - at least the campaign i could without problems play in Arma1 with version 1.01 (release-day patch).

[EricM 0]

I played GTA4 on the release Date

: on PC ?

performance and engine bugged

: I think performance and engine is very good. I can play all on high on a 2 year-old machine.

MP bugged

: what's bugged in MP ? I haven't encountered pb so far.

AI heavy bugged, Campaign terribly bugged,

: Driving AI is indeed fubar. Waiting next patch to play the campaign, so can't tell...

All in all, 66% is harsh but rather fair for the German Release if they plan to reconsider their review later with other patches. Those "bugs" do exist, but if BIS didn't try the impossible, we would still be stuck with corridor WW2 shooters...

What's sad is that the game suffers from its ambition to do so much, while other simple "Sudoku" games on DS get massive 95% ratings while obviously much less deserving (though admitedly bugfree).

In the end I believe that BIS would have had better reviews if it had scrapped half the features and campaign and sold it as an "MP" only game, like battlefield...

Edited June 8, 2009 by EricM

[mr.g-c 6]

Here is a free quick translation about Christian Schneiders Conclusion:

Arma2 does not belie its high expectations, despite the countless bugs. With Realism (like it should be expected from a good simulation) it has after todays modern standards not much in common. The overwhelmed and clearly obvious cheating AI, the obsolete and not comprehensible Physics and the clumsy/bulky controls are overhauled at years already (by other products - remark mr.g-c).

The game world oozes from inconsistency and feels, despite the mostly great graphics and its unique atmospheric moments, too implausible. Bohemias ambitionated Military Simulation promises much, but the result is only a small portion of what the game could have been! That there is so far no real alternative game in this genre existing, is not making Arma2 better at all, only more endurable.

Arma2 is from many viewpoints unfinished, way too early released.

It even seems that the Manufacturer relies on the good Operation Flashpoint Community : They will not only forgive the mistakes but also correct them soon.

We have the opinion that this community would have deserved a way better Product.

We hope at least that Bohemia Interactive quickly delivers more patches, which can complete the fantastic potential of Arma2, which teases itself in the easier singleplayer missions (Scenarios, remark mr.g-c), to its fully potential.

we will closly monitor Arma2 in the future and will adapt the ratings with the upcomming patches.

@ EricM, no need to defend it here what is obvious.

Read all the bug reports and the press reviews.....

[hawk66de 10]

I do not think that 66% is fair in comparison to the score of Arma 1 (>70%).

Arma 2 1.01 is much more sophisticated compared to Arma 1, 1.01 - in almost every area.

The score for the AI (3 of 10 points) is a complete joke...I only know SWAT 4 which has a similar capable AI, but it is based on the unreal engine, has therefore a limited scope and no sandbox mode but the AI path etc. are hard coded in the map.

Everybody who has studied AI knows that it is very, very tough to code an AI for the scope of Arma 2

[froggyluv 2136]

I do not think that 66% is fair in comparison to the score of Arma 1 (>70%).

Arma 2 1.01 is much more sophisticated compared to Arma 1, 1.01 - in almost every area.

The score for the AI (3 of 10 points) is a complete joke...I only know SWAT 4 which has a similar capable AI, but it is based on the unreal engine, has therefore a limited scope and no sandbox mode but the AI path etc. are hard coded in the map.

Everybody who has studied AI knows that it is very, very tough to code an AI for the scope of Arma 2

I very much agree with this sentiment. I mean what exactly are these reviewers comparing ARMA 2 with? There are no other games that dare even approach such a grand scale in this genre. OFPDR is still in the dark but it appears as if they have thrown everything in to the attempt but the kitchen sink and I don't believe they are staying the course for a wide-world cross arms simulator.

Games of monstrous scale are going to have bugs period. They just don't appear overnight with spit and polish. I really believe the reviewers lose sight of this ambitious maybe overachieving factor and get caught up in trivialities, false comparisons and certainly their own aura of self-importance.

[Maizel 10]

I do not think that 66% is fair in comparison to the score of Arma 1 (>70%).

Arma 2 1.01 is much more sophisticated compared to Arma 1, 1.01 - in almost every area.

The score for the AI (3 of 10 points) is a complete joke...I only know SWAT 4 which has a similar capable AI, but it is based on the unreal engine, has therefore a limited scope and no sandbox mode but the AI path etc. are hard coded in the map.

Everybody who has studied AI knows that it is very, very tough to code an AI for the scope of Arma 2

Reviewers don;t tend to 'inflate' their scores.

Sure, Arma II is probably way more sophisticated than Arma I, but then again, Arma I is several years old.

Judged by the standards of today, the reviewer might be right asigning it a 66%.

[*tcf*jackal 10]

Its a tough one. It is a sad state of affairs that games are released with so many issues and are seen as ongoing projects rather than a finished article when they hit the shelves.

Having said that, games are becoming more and more complex as more powerful processors become available. Developers face an uphill struggle when squashing bugs as their games become more complex. The increase in the number of open beta's we see these days is proof that they need the help of the players to pinpoint issues. It is a very cost effective way to test your game. The difference here is that Germany has been asked to fork out £30 (or so) to play what could be called a beta release by the sounds of things I should point out I havent played the game yet and am going purley on what you guys are saying.

A developer on the scale of BIS is really going to struggle to iron out bugs without the help of its dedicated community, simply because the game is pushing the boundaries and is highly complex when compared with its nearest rival. It may also be fair to class BIS as a "small" developer. The result being that they need our help to polish the game up.

ArmA II will be an ongoing project and thats something we will need to accept. A game with this ambition simply has to be. I for one am willing to cut it some slack at this early stage because quite frankly, the OFP series is the best at what it does, by a country mile. I dont agree with how the game has been released, but it may be a means to an end and I have come to accept that this is the way the games industry works.

I would add that I hope the reviews will also be ongoing as patches are released so that all the hard work that the community and BIS put into these patches will be recognised.

[rasdenfasden 12]

I think the AI related part could have something to do with the reviewer being shot constantly and denying that he's not playing the right way. When I first played Arma 2 I thought to myself that there will be very bad feedback on the AI because it's too good for the average gamer who expects to be a 1 man army.

[Balschoiw 0]

If BIS wants a better rating they should have delivered a more bugfree and complete product than Arma 2 is/was when it hit the german shelves. Easy as that.

Nitpicking about the reviewers won´t solve the problems Arma 2 has.

[Fred DM 0]

nobody would be negatively surprised if a game like ArmA 2 had bugs. it's simply unavoidable in a game of this complexity and scale.

however, basic script bugs in the campaign are painfully obvious and will result in a negative vedict, no matter how cool the game may be in other aspects.

some people may forgive more bugs than others. the 66% verdict of GameStar is one opinion (or the average of 2-3 opinions). nothing more, nothing less. if your personal bug-tolerance is higher, you will give this game 80-90%. if it is lower, you will give it only 30%.

personally, i'd give it a mid-80s score. i've been having lots of fun since i've bought it. but then again, i haven't even tried the campaign yet, just played with the editor and the Armory.

[^Th0mas^ 10]

Im so happy to hear that BIS are improving the driving AI. Thats the most shitty thing so far in the game

[sparks50 0]

Not a big deal, But my local Norwegian game site made an article on the flash game.

http://www.spillverket.no/artikler/spill_arma_ii_og_vinn_arma_ii/70201

[S!fkaIaC 10]

They mention in that review fundamental design bugs. The general physic simulation is rated as "Die Physikberechnung hinkt im Großen und Ganzen den aktuellen Möglichkeiten um Jahre hinterher. " = " years behind the state of the art" and "Für eine Militärsimulation sind diese Schwächen unverzeihlich." = " for a military simulation unforgivable"

Something which one can get slaughtered here if you stated the same.

I have doubts that BIS can make ArmA 3 with an evolution of the current engine instead of an revolution.

But Q is if they have the financial resources and the willingness to do so.

Edited June 9, 2009 by S!fkaIaC

[Scrub 0]

If they just(1) updated the physics aspect of the engine(2), after they are comfortable with the state of Arma2, that would be the 'Queens Gambit' I'd happily pay for! Puhleese oh Please! :rolleyes:

Notes:

(1) There's that damn word again, and I mean to use it as 'only', not as if it's easy or anything of the sort.

(2) And model properties, material properties... I know.