What does ARMA 2 have that Operation Flashpoint 2 doesn't?

[Kristian 47]

Sorry for the typos and stuff, I sent the post from my cell. ;)

[OFFTOPIC] Pretty honorable to write such a text from cell, salute to you, and a cookie ;)]

I really dont see how people can compare ArmA2 and OFP2, when OFP2 isnt even out yet! They got no idea how the gameplay feels.. It might turn out pretty good. :) Though I am BIS Fan still, and will probably wait for few reviews about OFP2 after its released :rolleyes:

[SASrecon 0]

Well someone needs to do their research...

prove me wrong. I mean this in the least flamebaiting way possible ;)

[Tyrokiller 10]

God damnit, now your forcing me to painstakingly sift through tons of information (1 page). *Waves fist"

I'll edit back when I find it. ;)

Edit:

52 seconds. :)

Edited June 30, 2009 by Tyrokiller

[Amuro 10]

Didn't play OF2 so I can't tell much, but for sure there is one thing OF2 has and Arma2 don't. Proper Javelin aiming screen -> http://www.flickr.com/photos/codemasters/3662598036/sizes/o/

That is very true. Some of the weapon simulation in ArmA 2 is poor. For example, you know what holographic is, and how Eotech works. The aimpoint in game is COMP-M2, it's MOA is 2, 2MOA. For a Eotech, outer circle is 65MOA with 1 MOA dot. But the 2 MOA dot in ArmA 2 looks so just too big.

[SASrecon 0]

God damnit, now your forcing me to painstakingly sift through tons of information (1 page). *Waves fist"

52 seconds. :)

Ok 0:53 shows a heli firing rockets, this could just be someone in a gunner seat firing rockets at the right time, while the AI flies the heli over a village :confused:

I still need more proof :p

http://www.ofp2.info/ftp/pics/news/pics1/ofp2_newnews7.jpg this looks interesting however, its a supersoldier with 2 machine guns, some grenades with a picture of a heavy launcher of some sort and a pistol, all on ONE character :eek:

[waffen 0]

http://www.ofp2.info/ftp/pics/news/pics1/ofp2_newnews7.jpg this looks interesting however, its a supersoldier with 2 machine guns, some grenades with a picture of a heavy launcher of some sort and a pistol, all on ONE character :eek:

I hope you can select one of the two primary assault rifles, if not, from now on, any comment about realism in ofpdr is rendered invalid. :rolleyes:

[bascule42 10]

Its a bit like comparing the old Muppet Show to the new Sesame Street. Ya digg??? One is a classic piece of childrens programming...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lgcQUQZBtE

..the other is formulastic piece of crap that is relying heavily on reputation from glory days when it still had soul, passion, and the proper voices for big bird, the count, and bert & ernie.

Now, my life is complete as I have fulfilled a life long ambition to post a video of Ma na ma na in a serious debate.

Edited July 1, 2009 by Bascule42
I missed an "a" out. Prize availible for pointing out where.

[Tyrokiller 10]

Reason: I missed an "a" out. Prize availible for pointing out where.

It should be available now weres my prize? :p

Ok 0:53 shows a heli firing rockets, this could just be someone in a gunner seat firing rockets at the right time, while the AI flies the heli over a village :confused:

I still need more proof :p

Well that's all I have for you and the fact that cm has only confirmed no planes. Best waiting if you don't believe that footage.

Edited July 1, 2009 by Tyrokiller

[Yoma 0]

All that youtube video proves to me is that they do indeed have only the name OFP.

The gun sounds are crappy and unrealistically to say the least, the overall environment does not seem convincing at all compared to arma2, the night sequences look like every unit has a seeking light on them, they seem to magically glow in the night, where in arma they would actually be in the dark as they should be.

There are no sonic soundcracks to be heared, the anims look way to steady compared to real life movement.

In short, to me the more ingame footage i see, the more it looks like *yet another* BF2 clone, with the OFP name slapped onto it.

In my opinion the publisher should burn in hell forever simply for desacrifising the holy OFP name.

Show me 70 player online coop or adversary and maybe i'll rethink.

The only good thing i can think of about OFP2 is that is gave Arma2 some extra publicity as a lot of the genuine community pointed out: HEY THESE GUYS ARE RIPPING US OFF!, redirecting at least some players to where they really should be: Arma2.

[SWAT_BigBear 0]

44 pages ugh.........anyone mention a Demo yet?

[bascule42 10]

It should be available now weres my prize? :p

Damn that's a different "a"...ya can have a prize anyway.

:p

Back OT. 44 pages of mainly truth. I should support CM really being a native company, but they can kiss my arse re OFP. They'll find out there's more to name, I dare say it will sell well at first...but they ought to stick to games starting with "Colin McRea" imo.

[Pl4t0 10]

it has one of the greatest, most dedicated communities I've EVER seen, that will support it with mods/content for YEARS after this game's release. OFP2 can't say the same.

[Tincup 10]

it has one of the greatest, most dedicated communities I've EVER seen, that will support it with mods/content for YEARS after this game's release. OFP2 can't say the same.

That is an assumption/opinion. If the game turns out to be good, you don't know what people will do. I am one of the people here that will be the first to say I will buy OFPDR, and if it is as good as ARMA2, I will play them both. But to assume that the other game will not have a following of creative people that can provide mods and addons is jusy speculation on your part.

[Antichrist 0]

Before I actually played Arma 2 myself, those OFPDR movies didn't look too bad. I just watched the trailer again now and damn does it look shit or what.

[Sabbathius 10]

Folks focusing on features and graphical limitations, keep in mind that an average gamer is looking for some fun, to be entertained, not technical details.

ArmA2 is great, but what if OFP2 offers the same feel with less pain and less hassles, for example? The sales would certainly reflect that. Suppose 6 months from now I download AA2 demo and OFP2 demo, and play them. In AA2 demo I get stuck looking at the team screen for 10 mins before the match finishes, in OFP2 I get put into observer mode and get to check out the fighting. When I finally get into the game, I get immediately sniped by the jeep machinegunner from 600m while hiding behind a tree with only my eye showing, but in OFP2 the accuracy is not that precise, and I win the match, it's still challenging but doesn't make me want to throw the keyboard at the wall and yell "WTF!" when the APC gunner snipes me in the gunner's seat of an attack chopper doing a tight turn at top speed. This repeats 5 times. And then next day on my way from work I walk into the videogame store. What do you think I'll buy? For an average gamer, the answer will be pretty darn obvious.

On a conscious level I realize AA2 is infinitely deeper and far more customizable, if "more" is the right word. But none of it will matter if the other game is simply fun, entertaining, hassle-free, while offering the same FEEL as AA2. An average gamer will not get that far, an average gamer will fire up the demo, and join a match. If that experience is awful in AA2 and in OFP2 this experience is pleasant and entertaining, albeit still challenging, that's the game the average gamer will buy. If they don't enjoy the initial gameplay, they will NOT rush into the editor where AA2 really shines and say "Aaaah, this is cool!", nobody does that.

In layman's terms, nothing I've seen so far says that AA2 is a superior GAME to OFP2. It's superior sim, with superior customization potential, but those don't make it a better GAME. All that OFP2 has to do to survive and thrive is to beat AA2 in gameplay aspect of it, even if it comes up short on simulation and customization. Why do you think WoW has survived so long? Because it was superior to other MMOs graphically? Or because of its superior customization potential? No, of course not. It survived because the gameplay was accessible and fun, while in other games it was painful and clunky. If you want to see this in FPS genre, COD series is a good example. It's an old franchise and keeps on going strong because every installment always offers one thing: highly responsive, visceral close quarters FPS combat. If COD suddenly dropped that and went into a sniper simulator where 30 mins of crawling finally culminated in a shot from 1100m and if you missed you'd have to start over, would the sales for this game come anywhere close to the previous installment? No, of course not. Why not? Gameplay would no longer be fun. Sure, it would be fun for some - the few, the proud, the geeky, but it not for mainstream.

So I wouldn't celebrate just yet. Not until we've all tried it and saw what it feels like in actual gameplay. Because that, not graphics or technical aspects, are what makes the game live or die.

[batis4 21]

Everything.

[Stimpak_Addict 0]

Folks focusing on features and graphical limitations, keep in mind that an average gamer is looking for some fun, to be entertained, not technical details.

ArmA2 is great, but what if OFP2 offers the same feel with less pain and less hassles, for example? The sales would certainly reflect that. Suppose 6 months from now I download AA2 demo and OFP2 demo, and play them. In AA2 demo I get stuck looking at the team screen for 10 mins before the match finishes, in OFP2 I get put into observer mode and get to check out the fighting. When I finally get into the game, I get immediately sniped by the jeep machinegunner from 600m while hiding behind a tree with only my eye showing, but in OFP2 the accuracy is not that precise, and I win the match, it's still challenging but doesn't make me want to throw the keyboard at the wall and yell "WTF!" when the APC gunner snipes me in the gunner's seat of an attack chopper doing a tight turn at top speed. This repeats 5 times. And then next day on my way from work I walk into the videogame store. What do you think I'll buy? For an average gamer, the answer will be pretty darn obvious.

On a conscious level I realize AA2 is infinitely deeper and far more customizable, if "more" is the right word. But none of it will matter if the other game is simply fun, entertaining, hassle-free, while offering the same FEEL as AA2. An average gamer will not get that far, an average gamer will fire up the demo, and join a match. If that experience is awful in AA2 and in OFP2 this experience is pleasant and entertaining, albeit still challenging, that's the game the average gamer will buy. If they don't enjoy the initial gameplay, they will NOT rush into the editor where AA2 really shines and say "Aaaah, this is cool!", nobody does that.

In layman's terms, nothing I've seen so far says that AA2 is a superior GAME to OFP2. It's superior sim, with superior customization potential, but those don't make it a better GAME. All that OFP2 has to do to survive and thrive is to beat AA2 in gameplay aspect of it, even if it comes up short on simulation and customization. Why do you think WoW has survived so long? Because it was superior to other MMOs graphically? Or because of its superior customization potential? No, of course not. It survived because the gameplay was accessible and fun, while in other games it was painful and clunky. If you want to see this in FPS genre, COD series is a good example. It's an old franchise and keeps on going strong because every installment always offers one thing: highly responsive, visceral close quarters FPS combat. If COD suddenly dropped that and went into a sniper simulator where 30 mins of crawling finally culminated in a shot from 1100m and if you missed you'd have to start over, would the sales for this game come anywhere close to the previous installment? No, of course not. Why not? Gameplay would no longer be fun. Sure, it would be fun for some - the few, the proud, the geeky, but it not for mainstream.

So I wouldn't celebrate just yet. Not until we've all tried it and saw what it feels like in actual gameplay. Because that, not graphics or technical aspects, are what makes the game live or die.

Play on Recruit mode first and do all of the Boot Camp missions. They put those things there for a reason.

[LJF 0]

Folks focusing on features and graphical limitations, keep in mind that an average gamer is looking for some fun, to be entertained, not technical details.

ArmA2 is great, but what if OFP2 offers the same feel with less pain and less hassles, for example? The sales would certainly reflect that. Suppose 6 months from now I download AA2 demo and OFP2 demo, and play them. In AA2 demo I get stuck looking at the team screen for 10 mins before the match finishes, in OFP2 I get put into observer mode and get to check out the fighting. When I finally get into the game, I get immediately sniped by the jeep machinegunner from 600m while hiding behind a tree with only my eye showing, but in OFP2 the accuracy is not that precise, and I win the match, it's still challenging but doesn't make me want to throw the keyboard at the wall and yell "WTF!" when the APC gunner snipes me in the gunner's seat of an attack chopper doing a tight turn at top speed. This repeats 5 times. And then next day on my way from work I walk into the videogame store. What do you think I'll buy? For an average gamer, the answer will be pretty darn obvious.

On a conscious level I realize AA2 is infinitely deeper and far more customizable, if "more" is the right word. But none of it will matter if the other game is simply fun, entertaining, hassle-free, while offering the same FEEL as AA2. An average gamer will not get that far, an average gamer will fire up the demo, and join a match. If that experience is awful in AA2 and in OFP2 this experience is pleasant and entertaining, albeit still challenging, that's the game the average gamer will buy. If they don't enjoy the initial gameplay, they will NOT rush into the editor where AA2 really shines and say "Aaaah, this is cool!", nobody does that.

In layman's terms, nothing I've seen so far says that AA2 is a superior GAME to OFP2. It's superior sim, with superior customization potential, but those don't make it a better GAME. All that OFP2 has to do to survive and thrive is to beat AA2 in gameplay aspect of it, even if it comes up short on simulation and customization. Why do you think WoW has survived so long? Because it was superior to other MMOs graphically? Or because of its superior customization potential? No, of course not. It survived because the gameplay was accessible and fun, while in other games it was painful and clunky. If you want to see this in FPS genre, COD series is a good example. It's an old franchise and keeps on going strong because every installment always offers one thing: highly responsive, visceral close quarters FPS combat. If COD suddenly dropped that and went into a sniper simulator where 30 mins of crawling finally culminated in a shot from 1100m and if you missed you'd have to start over, would the sales for this game come anywhere close to the previous installment? No, of course not. Why not? Gameplay would no longer be fun. Sure, it would be fun for some - the few, the proud, the geeky, but it not for mainstream.

So I wouldn't celebrate just yet. Not until we've all tried it and saw what it feels like in actual gameplay. Because that, not graphics or technical aspects, are what makes the game live or die.

But that is precisely why people like ArmA2. If you like CoD then ArmA probably isn't the place for you. There ARE people who like a bit of realism you know :D

[Antichrist 0]

Folks focusing on features and graphical limitations, keep in mind that an average gamer is looking for some fun, to be entertained, not technical details.

ArmA2 is great, but what if OFP2 offers the same feel with less pain and less hassles, for example? The sales would certainly reflect that. Suppose 6 months from now I download AA2 demo and OFP2 demo, and play them. In AA2 demo I get stuck looking at the team screen for 10 mins before the match finishes, in OFP2 I get put into observer mode and get to check out the fighting. When I finally get into the game, I get immediately sniped by the jeep machinegunner from 600m while hiding behind a tree with only my eye showing, but in OFP2 the accuracy is not that precise, and I win the match, it's still challenging but doesn't make me want to throw the keyboard at the wall and yell "WTF!" when the APC gunner snipes me in the gunner's seat of an attack chopper doing a tight turn at top speed. This repeats 5 times. And then next day on my way from work I walk into the videogame store. What do you think I'll buy? For an average gamer, the answer will be pretty darn obvious.

On a conscious level I realize AA2 is infinitely deeper and far more customizable, if "more" is the right word. But none of it will matter if the other game is simply fun, entertaining, hassle-free, while offering the same FEEL as AA2. An average gamer will not get that far, an average gamer will fire up the demo, and join a match. If that experience is awful in AA2 and in OFP2 this experience is pleasant and entertaining, albeit still challenging, that's the game the average gamer will buy. If they don't enjoy the initial gameplay, they will NOT rush into the editor where AA2 really shines and say "Aaaah, this is cool!", nobody does that.

In layman's terms, nothing I've seen so far says that AA2 is a superior GAME to OFP2. It's superior sim, with superior customization potential, but those don't make it a better GAME. All that OFP2 has to do to survive and thrive is to beat AA2 in gameplay aspect of it, even if it comes up short on simulation and customization. Why do you think WoW has survived so long? Because it was superior to other MMOs graphically? Or because of its superior customization potential? No, of course not. It survived because the gameplay was accessible and fun, while in other games it was painful and clunky. If you want to see this in FPS genre, COD series is a good example. It's an old franchise and keeps on going strong because every installment always offers one thing: highly responsive, visceral close quarters FPS combat. If COD suddenly dropped that and went into a sniper simulator where 30 mins of crawling finally culminated in a shot from 1100m and if you missed you'd have to start over, would the sales for this game come anywhere close to the previous installment? No, of course not. Why not? Gameplay would no longer be fun. Sure, it would be fun for some - the few, the proud, the geeky, but it not for mainstream.

So I wouldn't celebrate just yet. Not until we've all tried it and saw what it feels like in actual gameplay. Because that, not graphics or technical aspects, are what makes the game live or die.

But that's why original OFP sold so well. It was the only "hardcore" game among crappy SOF2 clones. If BIS tries to go soft, they will not gain many more customers, but will definitely lose a lot of existing ones.

[Xindar 10]

One of the things that OPF/Arma/Arma2 have and there is no proof that it will be in DR - great soundtrack. There are about 15-20 tracks in soudtracks to each game. Thats almost 60 great songs for 3 WAR simulations. Amazing!

:o::cancan::dancehead::dance1::partytime:

[LJF 0]

Yeah, they'll no doubt chuck in awkward music like in CoD - although I do admit that the music through the credits was quite nice ... but not really the sort of thing you'd want in a "war sim".

[mrcash2009 0]

Wasn't too impressed with visuals on the dragon Rising youtube Machinima link.

Looked like Photoshop filter was over it all (posterise or whatever it is that makes things pastel sketch looking). Bit of a come down from the previous CGI render hype.

The night section some tank models looked a little sparse in detail. Interesting.

[Quinten 10]

Hi everybody :D

in my opinion the movy's from arma2 look a lot more realisctic than the movy's from operation flashpoint2.

i think operationflashpoint2 is going to be more arcade.

[chaplainDMK 10]

Folks focusing on features and graphical limitations, keep in mind that an average gamer is looking for some fun, to be entertained, not technical details.

ArmA2 is great, but what if OFP2 offers the same feel with less pain and less hassles, for example? The sales would certainly reflect that. Suppose 6 months from now I download AA2 demo and OFP2 demo, and play them. In AA2 demo I get stuck looking at the team screen for 10 mins before the match finishes, in OFP2 I get put into observer mode and get to check out the fighting. When I finally get into the game, I get immediately sniped by the jeep machinegunner from 600m while hiding behind a tree with only my eye showing, but in OFP2 the accuracy is not that precise, and I win the match, it's still challenging but doesn't make me want to throw the keyboard at the wall and yell "WTF!" when the APC gunner snipes me in the gunner's seat of an attack chopper doing a tight turn at top speed. This repeats 5 times. And then next day on my way from work I walk into the videogame store. What do you think I'll buy? For an average gamer, the answer will be pretty darn obvious.

On a conscious level I realize AA2 is infinitely deeper and far more customizable, if "more" is the right word. But none of it will matter if the other game is simply fun, entertaining, hassle-free, while offering the same FEEL as AA2. An average gamer will not get that far, an average gamer will fire up the demo, and join a match. If that experience is awful in AA2 and in OFP2 this experience is pleasant and entertaining, albeit still challenging, that's the game the average gamer will buy. If they don't enjoy the initial gameplay, they will NOT rush into the editor where AA2 really shines and say "Aaaah, this is cool!", nobody does that.

In layman's terms, nothing I've seen so far says that AA2 is a superior GAME to OFP2. It's superior sim, with superior customization potential, but those don't make it a better GAME. All that OFP2 has to do to survive and thrive is to beat AA2 in gameplay aspect of it, even if it comes up short on simulation and customization. Why do you think WoW has survived so long? Because it was superior to other MMOs graphically? Or because of its superior customization potential? No, of course not. It survived because the gameplay was accessible and fun, while in other games it was painful and clunky. If you want to see this in FPS genre, COD series is a good example. It's an old franchise and keeps on going strong because every installment always offers one thing: highly responsive, visceral close quarters FPS combat. If COD suddenly dropped that and went into a sniper simulator where 30 mins of crawling finally culminated in a shot from 1100m and if you missed you'd have to start over, would the sales for this game come anywhere close to the previous installment? No, of course not. Why not? Gameplay would no longer be fun. Sure, it would be fun for some - the few, the proud, the geeky, but it not for mainstream.

So I wouldn't celebrate just yet. Not until we've all tried it and saw what it feels like in actual gameplay. Because that, not graphics or technical aspects, are what makes the game live or die.

The thing is, in real life that is possible.

Altho not 100% realistic ArmA2 comes about lets say 60-70% close, witch is still like miles away from any other game...

OFP will be in the middleground i think, like GRAW and RS6V.

Authentic i guess, like 30-50%

Cod is barely 10-20% lol

Thats my point of view.

[froggyluv 2136]

@Sabbathius -The bottom line is nobody has any idea of how fun or accessible the AI will be in OFPDR in terms of accuracy, pathfinding, realistic response times, driving, flying- it's all speculation and promises at this point.. I'm curious myself, as in most open world games, it is the AI that is the hardest to get right.