ArmA2 1.03 Impressions - ALL Impressions/Videos/Screenies Here

[Decerto 10]

Just got the game. Its is great, runs well on my system and have not come across anythings game breaking yet playing through the scenarios. It feels like OpF on steroids and is better than I thought it would be. The graphics are amazing I cannot get over just how far we have come in a decade. Thanks BIS for a great sim and providing us with an awesome sandbox to play in for the next few years!

[nikiforos 450]

I have the game but not the computer to play it:(

[jakerod 254]

I have the game but not the computer to play it:(

Even on low? I put everything I have to low or very low except my view distance is at 2000 or 3000 and my resolution is a bit better than default because it was too blurry before. The great part is that even with all that stuff turned down I still love to play the game. It still lags a bit near certain trees and forests but it is great fun still.

[Shinobi575 10]

Check my screen shots out in the screenie area, FOR ALL YOU COPPA'S

[cj525 5]

I've been around for a while and have been looking forward to this release. I downloaded the digital version as none of the shops in my area have it yet. I thought I was going to be forced into building a new machine to get the full benefit from this lastest release. But to my surprise my current machine runs it very very well. You have to tweek the settings to get the best performance out of your machine, but that's normal for any game today. AI are far better managed and work alot better in urban areas. I setup some large scale contacts and was impressed with the AI's ablility to react to the ever changing conditions. The only part I'm not sold on is the "Kegetyesque" graphic look, something I'll have to get used to but it just seems like I forgot to put on my glasses. But as mentioned earlier in this thread this can be remedied, I'll just have to read up on the settings further.

[Jimmy the Saint 10]

While there are many discussions like this one going on around the forum, people should not forget that there are also players who have almost no problems running the game or are not interested to read threads like this one. At a whole, my opinion is that no matter how new or "ueber" your system is that as long as it cannot cope with the operating system, other hardware, drivers etc. it might aswell get conflicts with the game and the game itself which sure might have some flaws aswell can bring up new trouble and can cause new problems like crashes to desktop. The newest hardware is not always the best hardware. Why do you think the game was rushed out too fast? What the about that piece of hardware you bought yesterday? It could be released too fast aswell and now it could be causing all the problems with the operating system, drivers (and so on) which may not support your newest hardware properly yet? How much hardware has been released ever since which caused problems at all, were bugged or even defect? I leave the counting and naming to you.

[archsceptic. 10]

You're right, we should have all just stuck with the VIC-20.

[Scrub 0]

Well, if you're going to take a chance on leading edge gaming hardware, might as well take a chance on a leading edge game (I also prefered the VIC-20 compared to the TI-1000).

Sarcasm aside, I've asked this question a few times now: If two computers with the same major hardware try to run Arma II, and only one can do it well, what are the preventative factors? (That, of course, is like THE troubleshooting question and a Zen koan at the same time. :rolleyes:)

[maddogx 13]

If two computers with the same major hardware try to run Arma II, and only one can do it well, what are the preventative factors? (That, of course, is like THE troubleshooting question and a Zen koan at the same time. :rolleyes:)

- Different operating systems.

- Different drivers.

- One computer may be overheating due to badly fitted CPU heatsink, lack of case fans etc., causing CPU and/or GPU to downclock.

- Software running in the background, such as anti-virus software and program preloaders (Adobe and Java for example).

- Different hard drive configurations. A system with separate hard drives for Windows, the swap file and the game will perform much better than a system where all three are on the same hard drive.

- Hard drive fragmentation.

I'm sure there are more factors. :)

[cadmium77 16]

Well, if you're going to take a chance on leading edge gaming hardware, might as well take a chance on a leading edge game (I also prefered the VIC-20 compared to the TI-1000).

Sarcasm aside, I've asked this question a few times now: If two computers with the same major hardware try to run Arma II, and only one can do it well, what are the preventative factors? (That, of course, is like THE troubleshooting question and a Zen koan at the same time. :rolleyes:)

.dll's..that's what.

I downloaded these two things early one with this brand new installation of Vista Business and they immeasurably improved the performance of my 2 Xeon quad core system.

http://forum.sysinternals.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=9653

http://www.bloggingdeveloper.com/post/Internal-Error-2739-when-installing-Adobe-CS3-Products.aspx

Now I'm not saying the problems are specifically the ones that are dealt with on those two threads, but there could be other analogous problems in your OS installations that could be cured with a bit of detective work with google and your computer.

It worked for me and I'm running Arma 2 at maxed out settings and getting great results.

Next up is for a cooling system for my rig.

On these hot July days my performance suddenly starts to dramatically decay as teh fans just can't dissipate the heat fast enough from the CPUs/GPUs...

[Colossus 2]

Hi all

The media seem to be learning why ArmA II is so great.

It is that 4 week learning curve starting to kick in.

Players spend the first 4 weeks trying to stay alive for more than a few minutes then it clicks like it has for this guy:

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=24434

Kind Regards walker

I'd comment this here instead for the 'Press Coverage' because it's more indirectly related.

I always find the sit down and salute keys fun and they always get used in some situations, specially when you are waiting on pick up (in MP). Although it has no real practical use it still is a part of the OFP/ArmA soul. I have never really had a problem with the keyboard settings of OFP, ArmA or ArmA 2. Never the less, there is one thing that bugs me and thats the new command menu.

ArmA & ArmA 2

I already know most of the commands by hand now, something which one learns after spending countless hours with the same or similar command system from 3 different games. But there is a worrying thought that I needed to know the commands from the previous 2 games to make an effective use of ArmA 2's command menu. Simplicity is the keyword in the ArmA 2 command menu, however, in my opinion this have had quite the opposite effect on me and the friends that I know are playing ArmA 2 (and have played ArmA and OFP previously).

From the previous game, Armed Assault, there was a much larger primary command menu displayed (see picture). It was, as I see it, more organized and had numbers on it to give you an easier and quicker access to all the commands. This is something I miss in ArmA 2, and the only way to actually find your way to "Combat Mode (for instance) is to look in the manual or in the keyboard settings. This may have a deadly impact if you're in the middle of the firefight where you need to do quick decisions. It's a slow prosess aspecially if this is going on live on a multiplayer game where you cannot pause.

There are a few ways to solve this problem, if this is a wish for many.

One would be to make a extra option on the primary menu which leads to a sub menu that displays all the other commands that isn't displayed on the menu (as of current), or go back to the way ArmA: Armed Assault had its command menu.

I'm sure there are a few other options, but seeing how the command menu has been for all 3 games (OFP, ArmA and ArmA 2 ) these are the most realistic ways of resolving this without putting too much work in to a new command menu. I do hope it might be brought up as a consideration to change the current command menu into a more beginner-userfriendly menu.

Quick summary: 1) Lack of numbering which makes it easier and quicker to find your way around the menu. 2) Missing commands from the command menu. Needs to know the numbers to get there.

Edited July 17, 2009 by colossus
grammar is not my strongest side ^^

[ck-claw 1]

Yepp-Colossus,it does my head in when i prees the 'spacebar' for commands only to realise that they are not there!

Then have to hit the 'back-space' for the rest!

[EricM 0]

It's indeed weird to use both space for "quick menu" (which has no option to go to advanced menu ! unlike in some earlier previous preview pics) and backspace for the "old style" menu.

[niQ® 0]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWpU6e0muJU

[Gel214th 10]

I bought the game through Steam.

And while I can appreciate what the developers were trying to do, the user interface is so very clumsy that it prevents me from enjoying the game.

Simple user friendly features are not present, such as a Mini Map, and better Overlays on the interface.

This isn't the first 'simulation' styled game on the market, Ghost Recon is similar and the interface for that title was just so much better.

It's difficult to read what is happening on the battlefield, objectives come and go. Driving the vehicles, selecting positions etc. feels very clumsy. There are no icons to click to do what you need to.

The graphics are also very strange, the screen brightens and darkens in very odd ways all the time. The game seems to look the best when it pauses to Save Game. The Audio also seems to come from strange directions and I have difficulty hearing spoken directions during the scripted scenes such as at the very start of a mission.

I have played up to the stage where you need to find the Sniper. I feel the game could be so much better, if it just had more polish and time taken to make the user interface easy, without necessarily cutting back on the physics and other simulation aspects of the game.

[Shadow NX 1]

There are only two types of people. some that instantly love it and others who find it odd from the first minute :)

For me its one of the best games i spend money on since OFP especially as it will entertain me for years.

Yes in many parts its clumsy and hectic but especially the fact that everytime lots of things happen everywhere around you make it so fascinating, it simulates the crazyness of war prettys good i think.

Play "Seize the Zones" by Kameny and you will get major confused ^^

Even i as a OFP and ArmA vet have a very hard time to ever finish it because a million things seem to happen at once.

And more things displayed on screen?

Well they dont make a soldier of the future game where every guy has lil huds on him like in the last GR games so i think that fits.

What i defintly miss is a system that makes you spot enemys bit easier as they blend far too good with the ArmA2 islands.

A simple system where units that make noise like firing would be made more visible by lets say some soundwave effect around them or something surely wouldnt be bad as a real soldier also can work with his senses a bit more than the player can in ArmA2.

Edited July 18, 2009 by Shadow NX

[Dark-Light 10]

I think mainly its down to the fact that games in general have improved upon the things you mention since Flashpoints original release, and while it was good at the time, nothing has really changed since that time and many people find it dated - myself included.

No other game quite manages to encompass the sheer amount of 'stuff' of this series however, and that is its selling point. Its a shame BIS haven't learned a great deal since 2001 about game evolution, but hopefully, future patches will change this game into a real successor.

[maturin 12]

The very first instant I moved my mouse in the tutorial, my reaction was 'What the fuck?!?'

Every single, tiny aspect of the game was somehow 'off,' from picking up weapons to the way the camera moved.

But now I'm used to almost all of it and wouldn't be able to function without the amount of control the game gives me.

[SWAT_BigBear 0]

This isn't the first 'simulation' styled game on the market, Ghost Recon is similar and the interface for that title was just so much better.

Once you learn the full capabilities of ArmA II, you will laugh at comparing it with GR.

[randir14 10]

This isn't a FPS you can just jump into and play like Battlefield, it's more of a simulator. To make movement easier on the eyes turn off headbob or play in third person mode.

[walker 0]

Hi all

You are perhaps used to gun on rails between the eyes FPS.

ArmA II is a simulator.

So the gun fires not from between your eyes as in most FPS but from muzzle of the gun.

The movement of the body is simulated so you do not get the on rails effect of FPS.

As others have said turn off head bob if it bothers you.

You get used to it fairly quickly and afterwards other FPS seem as childishly simplified as space invaders.

Kind Regards walker

[Master gamawa 0]

Minimap? You mean a map that floats magically in front of your head? Will it be attached with a fishing line on your helmet?

It's one thing to have HUD elements that show you stuff like rate of fire (since it would be ineffective to look at your weapon switch, given that you control a human being with a bunch of keys) and a whole other thing to have a map of the area always in your sight. It makes no sense! Same goes with the crosshair. It shows you the direction your weapon points to.

The HUD is there to provide you with information that you are unable to have because of the fact that reality is presented on a screen.

A minimap is completely surreal. Do you have a minimap in your sight when you are walking around your house?

[Lauxman 10]

There is a minimap in game. Ctrl+M I believe.

[Maddmatt 1]

A minimap is completely surreal. Do you have a minimap in your sight when you are walking around your house?

It's a GPS device. And you don't always have it. Usually only squad leaders and SF will have it. And it's in some vehicles.

It's represented as an item in your inventory that you can drop and pick up, along with the compass and other stuff.

[Squigibo 10]

I bought the game through Steam.

And while I can appreciate what the developers were trying to do, the user interface is so very clumsy that it prevents me from enjoying the game.

Simple user friendly features are not present, such as a Mini Map, and better Overlays on the interface.

In real life, do you have a minimap in front of your face?

This isn't the first 'simulation' styled game on the market, Ghost Recon is similar and the interface for that title was just so much better. Ghost Recon is not a simulator. It's a futuristic shooter where you use electronic overlays in your helmet so you can see through walls and find yourself in the real world. This is a simulator in all respects.

It's difficult to read what is happening on the battlefield, objectives come and go. Driving the vehicles, selecting positions etc. feels very clumsy. There are no icons to click to do what you need to.

Again, do you have icons floating in front of your face as you go through life? Do you have a HUD in front of your eyes telling you where the bathroom is, your toothbrush, and where you parked your car? This is a simulator, not Quake Wars.

The graphics are also very strange, the screen brightens and darkens in very odd ways all the time. The game seems to look the best when it pauses to Save Game. The Audio also seems to come from strange directions and I have difficulty hearing spoken directions during the scripted scenes such as at the very start of a mission. Do your eyes need to adjust going into bright daylight from a dark place? It's simulated in the game. When you turn your head and run, do you see every last detail while doing so in real life? It's simulated in the game.

I have played up to the stage where you need to find the Sniper. I feel the game could be so much better, if it just had more polish and time taken to make the user interface easy, without necessarily cutting back on the physics and other simulation aspects of the game.

Practice.... Once you learn the controls and understand why it's doing what it's doing, it makes much more sense.

Arma is more a simulator than a game. It's like comparing Flightsimulator X to Hawx.

Edited July 19, 2009 by Squigibo