Arma 2 vs other tactical and military shooters

[Comet 10]

I've read lots of your opinions on Arma 2. The game has caught my attention and I should have my copy tomorrow. I've read the usual Arma 2 vs OFP2 posts, I've played the first Operation Flashpoint so I know a bit of what to expect from Arma 2. But I didn't touch Arma at all so it will be a fresh game from the days of OFP1.

During the last few years I've played many of the other popular tactical/military shooters.

Americas Army, Tom Clancy tactical shooter games(Ghost, rainbow and so on), Vietcong and so on. Some focus on close quarters, others on huge open terrain battles with all the military firepower at your disposal.

Obviously Arma 2 falls in this last group. But anyway I have yet to find a military sim that offers for instance the quality of a close quarters battle like in Americas Army, with the sandbox experience of a game like Operation Flashpoint.

Has Arma 2 evolved regarding this? Are cities more detailed allowing for interesting close quarters encounters?

What is your opnion regarding the full range of options available in Arma 2 compared to other tactical shooters in the market today?

[S!fkaIaC 10]

Well, unfortunately there are no "others" except VBS. Rest is cold coffee

[Alex72 1]

Yes CQB is better in ARMA2 than ArmA1. Much better. And villages are quite detailed wich gives a lot of hiding places etc.

Also there is an editor if someone missed that? The editor contains a lot of objects this time around and if you test some SP missions youll see how BIS created even more hiding places and awesome ambiance in villages. Also this time there is a 3D editor (not open yet, but will be) and with it comes even more objects like bases and constructions etc etc. You can create very good urban areas in ARMA2.

Top that off with much better movement like changing stance while moving (standing to lowering your head for smaller profile) and at the same time doing that you can reload your weapon on the run.

So yeah - its better. Much better.

Alex

[S!fkaIaC 10]

Yes CQB is better in ARMA2 than ArmA1. Much better. And villages are quite detailed wich gives a lot of hiding places etc.

Well, unfortunately there are no "others" except VBS. Rest is cold coffee

Right, much better body control etc. Sometimes cold coffee is quite ok.

[mcvittees 0]

Well, unfortunately there are no "others" except VBS. Rest is cold coffee

Haha! Exactly!

[Alex72 1]

Yep MUCH better body control than ArmA1. And yes - cold coffe even called Frappé is the best. ;)

[manzilla 1]

There is no comparison. Nothing on the market really touches A2 when it comes to depth, content, playability, etc. I was a huge fan of OFP and ArmA too. To be honest, no tactical shooter really compares to these either.

You'll enjoy this game a lot. It's pretty damn well made even in the earliest version. Sure there's a lot one can nit-pick about thus far but the game in it's entirety can't be beat by any game on the market for a pure tactical, and now strategic, shooter. The new modules are absolutely wicked and with the High Command module you can bring some strategic thinking in to the mix.

[Baldman 10]

The combat mission series and WWIIOL are 2 titles that instantly come to mind for far more scope, depth, content, playability etc. ARMA really only has the graphical corner of the milsim market cornered. Everything else considered a 'milsim' is far more complex.

I think the reason its so popular (along with OFP) was because it has just the right mix of arcade and simulation elements. Either way, its a winner in my eyes.

[aus_twisted 0]

OFP was also very popular as I believe it was the first 1st/3rd person game that you could pretty much do what you wanted in a open world and use every vehicle/plane the game had. The first two GTA games had this kinda play but it was very limited as it only had a top down view until they released GTA3 which was a true 3D game with 3rd person view etc, but it was released about 4 months after OFP came out :p

[ebud 18]

The combat mission series and WWIIOL are 2 titles that instantly come to mind for far more scope, depth, content, playability etc. ARMA really only has the graphical corner of the milsim market cornered. Everything else considered a 'milsim' is far more complex.

I think the reason its so popular (along with OFP) was because it has just the right mix of arcade and simulation elements. Either way, its a winner in my eyes.

Never played WWIIOL but have played all the Combat Mission games. Not a lot, but played them enough to know that you can almost get as much of that out of ARMA/ARMAII (hopefully) with COC's Command Engine as you can with the Combat Mission series. Two completely different animals in reality so I don't see how you really can compare basic ARMA/ARMAII with either of those as they all serve completely different purposes.

WWIIOL... where is the mission editor? Where is the offline campaign? Can I mod it to Modern Combat? Like I said I never played because after my Airwarrior days I'll never pay to play.

If you want to compare other games I'd say GRAW, HD2 or even the DF series may be better. I know you are talking "Milsim" well... SBPROPE is a better tanker sim, IL2 a better prop sim, Falcon series a better jet sim, Black Shark a better heli sim... now where is the better infantry sim. I'm not looking for a better CQBOMFGDELTASPECOP sim but where is the better infantry sim? Where is the "sim" that gives you a feeling of combined arms? There isn't any I know of.

[Baldman 10]

Like I said, WWIIOL does what ARMAII/ARMA/OFP does on a half scale map of most of Europe with alot more players, Infantry, armoured, air and naval units all in first person. Mortars, MGs, rifles, SMGs, AT rifles and explosives are all right there. The fact that a flight of spitfires can fly for 15 minutes just to make it to a battle or a flight of bombers flying in formation for over an hour to reach the enemy's production facilites while the battle is raging on the ground beneath them is testament to its scope.

Its not about favouritism or "fighting" for the name of a game but ARMA is at the bottom of the milsim list. What it does, it does well and it does it in a fun way that gives you hours upon hours of replayability, it allows you to load up the game and be in a fight inside of 5 minutes and gives you some simulation elements to play with but it does sit on the line between sim and arcade shooter. That said, the franchise is still one of my all time favourites and probably always will be. It is what it is and what it is... works...... after patching ;).

[doomguy64 10]

+1

WWIIOL

If your into this type of niche military sim genre, give WWIIOL a go. I've invested a good year on and off with it. There's nothing else quite like it when it comes to MMOFPS's.

Not recommended for the impatient, high learning curve!

[S!fkaIaC 10]

To be honest, WWIIOL looks like BIS Posidon engine around 1995.

From graphics point of view. The rest I can not judge, means if WWIIOL can compete with OFP/ArmA in terms of MP capability, physics etc.

They should bring WWIIOL to modern graphic and then we will see if we got a real competitor.

[madrussian 347]

WWIIOL has no AI, correct? (or limited to stationary guns, etc)

For that reason alone, I've never taken the WWIIOL dive.

And then there's the whole no editor thing. :eek:

[Skodz 10]

Why would they need huge AI on a MMOFPS ?

I just wish they would make a modern version.

[Dallas 9]

Personally I think BI games transcend the genere.

Edited June 18, 2009 by Dallas
damn my lack of higher learning.

[Maizel 10]

I enjoy most tactical shooters, regardless of the degree of realism, to a certain extend.

[doomguy64 10]

It has AI but stationary AI to defend towns, airfields etc. All your enemies you will be facing will be real people. WWIIOL stimulates more of a war effort; etc high commands have to manage supplies, research new tanks, weapons etc. Then they have to place AO's (Attack Objectives) on towns and try pushing the opposing team off the map till their supplies and reinforcements reach zero. It’s a live 24/7 battlefield which makes it different compared to OPF or ARMA.

But yeah it does have its downs, somewhat outdated graphics but if you aren’t that conscience on eye candy, you’ll be able to enjoy it more. I wouldn’t say that these games are competing but rather have separate focus; WWIIOL is strictly online with offline practice and relies on other human players to contribute to a virtual war effort. While OPF and ARMA focuses more on singe player type with multiplayer, mission editors etc all combined with physics, graphics and AI. However the online can be compared to WWIIOL just not its scale (WWIIOL online uses a ½ scale map of Western Europe with 30,000 km² of accurate terrain) and also max amount of players (500-100 players average logged on at anytime).

Edited June 19, 2009 by doomguy64

[An Fiach 10]

WWIIOL has no AI, correct? (or limited to stationary guns, etc)

For that reason alone, I've never taken the WWIIOL dive.

And then there's the whole no editor thing. :eek:

Afraid of human interaction? lol

[st!gar 3]

Based on what I've seen from humans in online games, I wouldn't be surprised.

[4 IN 1 0]

IMO BI games fill the gap between the large scale MMOFPS WWIIOL and old style realistic tactical shooter like RS3 and SWAT

[Baldman 10]

IMO BI games fill the gap between the large scale MMOFPS WWIIOL and old style realistic tactical shooter like RS3 and SWAT

Bingo. Its perfect for those who don't want almost vertical learning curves but still enjoy some semblence of simulation, which is almost everyone into any kind of military games at some stage.

WWIIOL requires alot of hours before you can enjoy it fully but with ARMA/OPF/ARMAII it is accessible to almost everyone right off the bat. As mentioned the two arent really in competition since they fill different roles, WWIIOL fills the hardcore combined arms simulation role with PvP and ARMA is more for small scale actions and coops against AI with more eye candy. Its great for when you don't have the time to whittle away a night in a single battle.

You don't really see many TvT multiplayer servers, mostly just coop which I love and is alot of fun.

Edited June 19, 2009 by Baldman

[Pranne 10]

For me, Arma is the only "shooter" were you can die as player three times in a minute.

[Andi 10]

For me, Arma is the only "shooter" were you can die as player three times in a minute.

You ever played, Quake, UT, hell even Doom? :rolleyes:

[maddogx 13]

For me, Arma is the only "shooter" were you can die as player three times in a minute.

That's probably the most ridiculous statement I've read in a long time :rolleyes:. Like Andi asked above, have you ever played a game like Quake 3 Arena? I think I've died much more than 3 times per minute in that.

I also fail to see how you would manage to die 3 times in one minute in Arma2. If you are playing single player, dying 3 times a minute is absolutely impossible, unless you literally keep killing yourself then reloading. As for MP, most games are either coops or large scale Warfare/CTI where the respawn times are something like 20-30 seconds. Dying 3 times in a minute there would be practically impossible aswell.

Edited June 19, 2009 by MadDogX