What happened to the Ofp way?

[maturin 12]

I think the campaign represents precisely an effort to provide better, more developed content right out of the box. Pity the glitches and RTS mechanics derailed it.

[Bulldogs 10]

I think Maturin put it perfectly. BIS tried to put as much quality content in as possible, hence why they worked so hard on the campaign, but it was a case of trying too much and it ended up creating a stream of bugs.

I have to say that I loved Flashpoint, but everyone really does look through Rose coloured goggles.

For fun I reinstalled Flashpoint and Arma 1. Flashpoint was fun, but with the base settings and all the patches, there's really not that much to it. Content wise, the campaign is great, a bit linear though. Other than that, without installing custom mission/mods then there's really not much left of it.

I would have liked a campaign without the Warfare stuff myself, but that's just my cup of tea. I personally loved roaming around with Starforce 21, but some of my friends hated that and loved the Warfare stuff. To each their own I guess.

Personally I think that's the point of having the new expansion worked on. A lot of people didn't like the campaign and the hopes are that the new expansion will have a more linear (as linear as you can make an open world game) story driven campaign.

One thing I would love for it, and I know it was attempted in the second campaign mission, although not to well (too easy and lacking enemy) is a stream of new "Return to Eden" style missions.

[[GLT] Legislator 66]

Since when did this sort of game go from being glorified as being amazing due to the great game play and immersion.. to.. "the grapchics are amazing"..?? And hence.. I have to buy yet another new video card to get 20 fps? And further more, I hear.. once again.. the actual in game mission content is terrible??

What the hell is the ofp way? Is there somewhere a definion? Some kind of mission style? Some kind of gaming style? Some kind of emotional feeling?

Yeah, just blame companys that they'll stick to the future developement. If there were more like you we're still using old 2D graphics cards and playing donkey kong... btw trying playing ArmA II on a 9 year old is ridiculous (not related to you directly, but generally) and complaining about buying new components is even more then. Personally I wouldn't have bought ArmA II if it would been as ugly as Operation Flashpoint. Sure, it was good in 2001, but we're in 2009 and when I've got good hardware I want some software that uses it to the limit.

I know ArmA II is a pain even for highend machines right now, but ... the game isn't even finished yet :D So give it a try in a few months again. I'm sure performance will increase a little over the months. At least that's what happened with ArmA I.

Sorry for being so harsh, but it's monday morning and the first I read this week was a complain about ArmA II and this totally sucks.

[andersson 285]

Seems like someone is talking about the engine and others about missions.

I bought the engine and I see nothing that is better in OFP. I do miss the missions though.

[Bulldogs 10]

There's a solution to all of this.

If you don't care about the new graphics and new AI but want the mission content from flashpoint, well then, uninstall Arma 2 and play Flashpoint.

[[GLT] Legislator 66]

lol very good idea :D

I've read again over some statements. If people are complaining about the ArmA II campaign, then they're right. I didn't like the warfare setting either. That's why I began working on my own mp campaign. But I would've done that in OFP and ArmA anyway if I had the time for it, so there's no thingy to blame for me.

[thomas82 10]

OFP1 is still better then arma/arma2 for the following reasons:

-sp: campaign was much more emotional. You just felt like "you are Troska"

-mp: controls/movement (for me the most important reason)

=> In arma u cant play CQB.. the changes (movement) wich have been done are a step backward.. now your reaction in cqb-situations is much 2 slow compared to real-life.. i'm not talking about how it is to run 2km with full-gear (in this matter it might feel realistic)..

The G A M E P L A Y wich is the most important thing isnt good at CQB-Situations.. People are camping for the reason of bad controls, not for the reason of "beeing at war"

Edited September 21, 2009 by thomas82

[dmarkwick 261]

BIS games have always been poor at CQB, and this of course includes OFP. To say that OFP is good, or even merely better than ArmA1/2 at CQB seems bizarre to me. In matters of player control, ArmA2 is pretty similar to OFP.

[thomas82 10]

BIS games have always been poor at CQB, and this of course includes OFP. To say that OFP is good, or even merely better than ArmA1/2 at CQB seems bizarre to me. In matters of player control, ArmA2 is pretty similar to OFP.

we had a big CTF-Comunity before.. A lot of people were playin DM also, we played it before Clanwars.. I remember all the clans ([Mafia], {MOD}, {-SOD-}, DDz, FEAR, {ACE}, MMN, [MoM], #DK#, [FLS], [GGX], [HIS], [NHS], {USI}, {RS}, [MCY], ARMY, [RN], [OWM], NASF, [DFA], UKA, [=SFG=], [LBB], [iEF], [ETA], [TPC], =SA=, NPE, SAS, [sBS], BoP, [sWEC], AAF, [CSF], [POR], =USA=.)

..where are they now?

Edited September 21, 2009 by thomas82

[Zipper5 74]

SBS is still around. They even have an ArmA II server.

DK still exists too. I have some good friends who still play in it in ArmA II.

MCY... Well... It's sort of around. I'm friends with Celery, and he's really the only guy I ever hear from anymore from MCY.

[Guest]

Meaning what?

*edit*

OK, I guess you mean "no skill needed to complete them" comment. Well, I was talking about the player. The player needs no skill to complete them. Better?

You said it yourself, we're playing WITH the game, not just on it :)

Not much of a question there to be honest bud, you're not making it very clear what you are asking, but since you insist:

Wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference. OFP's popularity is not anchored on it's campaign or default missions.

I'm rather excellent as it happens :) I've just got to understand what the point IS first ;) you're waving your arms about moaning about "quality content" while bemoaning it's excellent graphics and dismissing all AI improvements, and seemingly any other improvements. I mean, WTF are we supposed to make of that? Then it turns out you're moaning about the missions. Well, you have your answer, those that do not care about the missions, do not care :)

First off, I apologize. Although I understand you basically calling my concerns "moaning" was not right, I had no right to go off the deep end.

To continue.

I disagree, strongly. ALL games that are released and do well provide extreme quality based mission/quest content. Period. Sorry, give me an example of otherwise? Seriously, where??

Where does a game get hailed as amazing and great, and everyone pays to play it.. where, in this game.. you are recommended to actually seek out modded missions and campaigns to get a good effect from playing their game?..

Are you serious? Telling me that they just wasted all that time and huge effort on the Cold War campaign and the Resistance campaign? That the game would have taken off either way due to modded material?

Ya right.

It is VERY seldom that modded mission content is comparable to what a major gaming company can provide.. that is the FACT. Because, as I stated fifty times, we are not funded, and we do not have all of the resources they do.

I will say a *few* amazing quality missions come out on occasion that actually are as good, or better than what a large gaming company might provide on the average.. and I do say strongly "FEW".. because they are just that.. very FEW.. and those few are normally very well known and hailed within the modding community as the best.

So.. what your saying is that we should :

Spend x money to upgrade our systems for these great graphical improvements.

Expect the mission content in Sp, Mp, and hugely importantly campaign missions to stink in the original content. So we basically just end up with a program that does amazing things, nothing well done to enjoy it, and many had to pay hundreds to upgrade just to get this.. apart from the game cost itself..

We should chase down modded missions, campaigns and mp missions to make up for having little quality of such included in the game we just spent all of this money on to buy and get running.. We need to sift through all the bad stuff (there is always tons of bad modded missions, that's life) and find the best missions.. (this often means going through many missions we *thought* would be great.. to find it was a 2 day work project and we got suckered in tio wasting 3 hours trying to bother with it)..

Then we finally *do* find a *FEW* good missions worth playing, play them over and over until were sick of them.. and maybe latch on to a great Mp mission we like.. and that particular mission ends up equaling our entire game experience for the next 3 months until something better comes out from modders?

Yep - your right man.

Modders make this game work, why even bother the Devs to create in game mission content anymore at all. How great a feeling to know one may have to spend x money to upgrade their system just to run a game.. - then spend x money to buy the game.. - then discover they still have to sift through tons of modded missions and downloads various mods to play them just to find something worth playing.. because .. the original content is in bad shape.

Yep. Mission content don't mean jack. Your right. Maybe other gaming companies will start following this trend. Next thing you know, we are buying games that have no quest/mission content provided at all.. and we have to completely rely on the modding community to create it. lol.

Edited September 21, 2009 by Guest

[dmarkwick 261]

Sorry, give me an example of otherwise? Seriously, where??

Oblivion, as I stated before. The quests play themselves, all you do is kill the baddies in the way. I had more fun wandering around ignoring every quest I happened across and just exploring the ruins & forests. When all the cheat mechanisms were modded out it became much more enjoyable, but then it became apparent that the game engine itself is reliant on these mechanisms to play out the quests.

I haven't ever played any user quests in Oblivion as I uninstalled it before any such things came out.

Where does a game get hailed as amazing and great, and everyone pays to play it.. where, in this game.. you are recommended to actually seek out modded missions and campaigns to get a good effect from playing their game?..

Are you serious? Telling me that they just wasted all that time and huge effort on the Cold War campaign and the Resistance campaign? That the game would have taken off either way due to modded material?

Ya right.

It is VERY seldom that modded mission content is comparable to what a major gaming company can provide.. that is the FACT. Because, as I stated fifty times, we are not funded, and we do not have all of the resources they do.

OK then, so on what servers are all these fantastic missions being played out? What clans, groups or public servers can you mention actually host & play any default ingame OFP content?

I will say a *few* amazing quality missions come out on occasion that actually are as good, or better than what a large gaming company might provide on the average.. and I do say strongly "FEW".. because they are just that.. very FEW.. and those few are normally very well known and hailed within the modding community as the best.

And yet they make up practically 100% of the online mission content.

So.. what your saying is that we should :

Spend x money to upgrade our systems for these great graphical improvements.

No, I suggest we keep up with ALL improvements in animation, AI, graphics, models, textures, shaders, sounds, environment, etc etc.

Expect the mission content in Sp, Mp, and hugely importantly campaign missions to stink in the original content. So we basically just end up with a program that does amazing things, nothing well done to enjoy it, and many had to pay hundreds to upgrade just to get this.. apart from the game cost itself..

I suggest that you might have a misunderstanding on the concerns of (lets say) at least half of all ArmA2 purchasers. And certainly all of them that come here to these forums. The game engine is a platform, and it's one worth paying for. It's a little bit like buying a game development engine that is easy to script, for about £25, which represents a bargain.

We should chase down modded missions, campaigns and mp missions to make up for having little quality of such included in the game we just spent all of this money on to buy and get running.. We need to sift through all the bad stuff (there is always tons of bad modded missions, that's life) and find the best missions.. (this often means going through many missions we *thought* would be great.. to find it was a 2 day work project and we got suckered in tio wasting 3 hours trying to bother with it)..

Then we finally *do* find a *FEW* good missions worth playing, play them over and over until were sick of them.. and maybe latch on to a great Mp mission we like.. and that particular mission ends up equaling our entire game experience for the next 3 months until something better comes out from modders?

What you do is up to you, I certainly won't tell you how to use it.

Modders make this game work, why even bother the Devs to create in game mission content anymore at all. How great a feeling to know one may have to spend x money to upgrade their system just to run a game.. - then spend x money to buy the game.. - then discover they still have to sift through tons of modded missions and downloads various mods to play them just to find something worth playing.. because .. the original content is in bad shape.

Yep. Mission content don't mean jack. Your right. Maybe other gaming companies will start following this trend. Next thing you know, we are buying games that have no quest/mission content provided at all.. and we have to completely rely on the modding community to create it. lol.

Not every game needs to meet the cookie-cutter standard that most games adhere to. ArmA2 is one such game, it exceeds "normal" game expectations, not in mission content (which you seem to be absolutely fixated on to the exclusion of every other quality) but in flexibility and infinite possibilities. People can literally make the game into what they wish it to be, within practical limits.

[AndresCL 10]

First off, I apologize. Although I understand you had to pay hundreds to upgrade just to get this.. apart from the game cost itself..

i didint updated my PC. Its about 2 years old and it can run it just fine (at low settings, but oh well, at least i dont have any CTDs :| )

Edited September 21, 2009 by AndresCL

[Guest]

There's a solution to all of this.

If you don't care about the new graphics and new AI but want the mission content from flashpoint, well then, uninstall Arma 2 and play Flashpoint.

Aye. That's easy to say to the many of us that have been dedicated over the years to the genre of Ofp/Arma games.

But say that to the tons of people that are just the average joe's.. that go and buy the game and play it, and are hugely disappointed from the content provided them.

I spend nearly three years working on a universal town battle system that functions on an an entire island, which CSL joined in on later, to try to provide a constantly revolving combat atmosphere in Sp.

The system works, and is sitting in gridlock in Arma1 right now. The reason it got canceled, primarily, is because even though the main battle system was mostly completed, everything else was lacking.. The missions intertwined.. the voice actors.. the content attached to the war.. etc..

It's impossible for a few modders to compensate for the lack of content, impossible. It takes a large team, a huge effort, funds, voice actors, money, etc.

Sadly, after all that time Kolgujev Conflict/Arma died (it was not yet renamed since it's transfer from Ofp), after sooo much work put in. Heck man, I still marvel at the quality in the e battle system, the entire island of Rahmadi basically gets split between 15 different factions, and the ai goes to war on it's own strategically taking over towns, using artillery, tanks, troops, etc. But.. it looked great, but without the detail in content, like I said, integrated missions, multiple voice overs, etc.. etc.. all it really is.. is a battle system that turns Rahmadi into a huge factional war zone, with no content to support it.

That's why I switched to modding Oblivion, because they put a giant effort in to provide a universal world of life, and provide huge immersive content that modders can build off of.

A few modders can't do it. It took my dumb a#$ head almost three years, and about 5000 lines of code to realize.. it aint gonna happen without a large team effort and funding.

Ah well :)

Edited September 21, 2009 by Guest

[froggyluv 2136]

Wait, so the OP has neither played the campaign nor Arma2 and is complaining about it? :confused:

The SP missions in OFP were pretty rudimentary by any measures, just open them up and check them out -it aint rocket science. CWC and Resistence were both good, played them multiple times, but the real draw at the time was this new open-world engine. It's the engine that had us all "wow!, I can approach this mission from a thousand different ways". If someone had put the Troska story in a standard shooter on rails we wouldn't all be crying over love lost. People always think back to the first time they experienced something great as "The One", or some sort of emotional gold standard that can never be replicated.

[Guest]

OK then, so on what servers are all these fantastic missions being played out? What clans, groups or public servers can you mention actually host & play any default ingame OFP content?

I just removed everything else, don't have the time to debate all of this, but Imo all of this is your opinion, and such is right.

This doesent make any sense man.. The game has been out for how many years? What missions would one expect people to play?

Yes the modding community does huge for these types of games - on the other hand - no - I disagree.

Without the initial great content provided by the game for us users to enjoy when we buy the game, it's basically like telling us :here's a great game engine.. no goto the mod's section and go fish!

Imo, if I had gotten Ofp without the campaign and the great Mp missions, I would likely just have thrown it in the garbage and never bought another Bis game. Same goes for Resistance.

When people pay for a game, what they get in their lap is the first thing they want to enjoy. Expecting them to sift through tons of modded content to find something worth playing for a game they just paid for is just STUPID.

Forgive me if I am wrong but : Modded content for a recently (note I say RECENTLY (not a 5 year old game)) released game is a BONUS, not a replacement for the content provided in the game.

Done arguing for my part. This is my opinion. You, and everyone else has theirs :)

---------- Post added at 11:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:04 PM ----------

Wait, so the OP has neither played the campaign nor Arma2 and is complaining about it? :confused:

The SP missions in OFP were pretty rudimentary by any measures, just open them up and check them out -it aint rocket science. CWC and Resistence were both good, played them multiple times, but the real draw at the time was this new open-world engine. It's the engine that had us all "wow!, I can approach this mission from a thousand different ways". If someone had put the Troska story in a standard shooter on rails we wouldn't all be crying over love lost. People always think back to the first time they experienced something great as "The One", or some sort of emotional gold standard that can never be replicated.

Yep :)

And found that from reading the forums here, in order to play the game, just like I had to with Arma1, I will have to update again, plus purchase the game, plus deal with badly put together mission content, just like in Arma1..

And That is what spurred my posting here. Because I feel this is ridiculous, that it's supposed to be about the in game experience provided by the company in overall content.. not graphics + find the best modded content you can - because the provided content is terrible.. plus once again tweak out your system to squeeze every ounce of fps you can into the game play.

Nope, never tried it. I can say I spent alot of time looking around the forums here. And I see exactly the same complaints made in Arma1.. which I was mostly disappointed with, and even somewhat regret moving KolCon to that platform, as it was destined to fail.

Edit/

Further more - realizing that if the game lags all to heck in just small combat operations. how the heck are most people supposed to enjoy the previous great missions.. like Cti.. or how would KolCon have ever survived had I bothered to (once again) port it here? Where even when a complicated script system removes temporarily all but the most near town occupants, yet.. the game wont even support a 50 vs 50 plus some tanks and artillery fight without mass lag and crashes? It's like.. the whole game went from being able to support mass troop combat operations.. to being a small scale combat game on a large scale island.. As far as I can tell (inform me if I am wrong).. from what I have searched on these forums.. Arma2 won't support crap for a even medium scale battle on the average Pc without mass fps drops and crashes..

Edited September 21, 2009 by Guest

[Bulldogs 10]

I actually like the content in Arma 2, except for the bugs in the campaign. There's a lot more scenarios in Arma 2 than there was in Flashpoint on release, the only thing lacking being the introduction of 2 warfare missions over story based content (and for the record, it took me longer to finish Arma 2 than CWC)

In the end you have some valid points, but all you keep coming back to is "I don't want to upgrade my system to buy a new game", which my response is "Don't upgrade your system, don't buy the new game"

It just seems like a little illogical arguement. Like going to the Crysis forums and saying "My PC can't run Crysis so you never should have released it. Everyone please go back to playing Far Cry"

[dmarkwick 261]

I just removed everything else, don't have the time to debate all of this, but Imo all of this is your opinion, and such is right.

This doesent make any sense man.. The game has been out for how many years? What missions would one expect people to play?

OK then, ever. When it was in it's prime, several years ago.

When people pay for a game, what they get in their lap is the first thing they want to enjoy. Expecting them to sift through tons of modded content to find something worth playing for a game they just paid for is just STUPID.

As you're fond of pointing out what constitutes an opinion, I'll do the same. Your opinion.

Forgive me if I am wrong but : Modded content for a recently (note I say RECENTLY (not a 5 year old game)) released game is a BONUS, not a replacement for the content provided in the game.

Again, I say you've misunderstood a large attraction of the game. And it's not the default content. In that regard, ArmA2 is fairly unique, aside from some flight sims etc.

Nope, never tried it. I can say I spent alot of time looking around the forums here. And I see exactly the same complaints made in Arma1.. which I was mostly disappointed with, and even somewhat regret moving KolCon to that platform, as it was destined to fail.

Oh my God, you mean I'm discussing an issue that's not even been experienced, understood, or even has ANY BEARING AT ALL on the OP? This is not only moaning, it's recreational moaning. I was right all the time :)

[froggyluv 2136]

Well I guess I just disagree with your general assumption that the Campaign is bad. I was having a blast with it until I got more hooked into the editor, but that wasn't the Campaign's fault :p Many People here have posted that they enjoy the Campaign but that it's main flaws were bugs which I've yet to encounter.

I also liked the stock SP missions when I first got the game but of course, stock missions can only last so long in any format. BI could have hired Guillermo del Toro to have directed the latest Campaign but if it had the same AI and features of good ol' CWC I would have passed.

Maybe it's me but I feel like most game plot lines are contrived and never really pull me in, but as long as it's somewhat interesting, and gives me a lot of latitude in how i want to go about playing it, I'm pretty happy. Oblivion was pretty fun for a while, but eventually the fourth wall broke down and I could see how their much ballyhooed "independent AI" was functioning, it just stopped being interesting to me. Now, had they added a truer combat system aka.Mount And Blade style combat to their story, I'd be playing that game forever, but as it stands, meh...

Engine features promote the story, and a story without a good engine is just a story..

[Guest]

Oh my God, you mean I'm discussing an issue that's not even been experienced, understood, or even has ANY BEARING AT ALL on the OP? This is not only moaning, it's recreational moaning. I was right all the time :)

Ironic. All you've been doing the whole time is "moaning" about my complaints regarding the information that is clearly revealed about Arma2 on these forums.

In fact, wasting my time on your posts is over, simply because all you desire is to attack what I express as concern. My concern is driven by what I have seen on these forums regarding this game, my concern is driven by my large disappointment with Arma1..

If you can't do anything more than berate people that express concerns..

Cheers, and bye to you.

Edited September 21, 2009 by Guest

[Defunkt 431]

Hang on, so you're complaining about a campaign you haven't even played?

Even if your position hadn't just lost any and all credibility, I for one never bother with the SP in any game and frankly would prefer they focussed instead on the MP exclusively. I also never played OFP, the graphics just looked so poor that I was never inclined to try it.

[Guest]

I actually like the content in Arma 2, except for the bugs in the campaign. There's a lot more scenarios in Arma 2 than there was in Flashpoint on release, the only thing lacking being the introduction of 2 warfare missions over story based content (and for the record, it took me longer to finish Arma 2 than CWC)

In the end you have some valid points, but all you keep coming back to is "I don't want to upgrade my system to buy a new game", which my response is "Don't upgrade your system, don't buy the new game"

It just seems like a little illogical arguement. Like going to the Crysis forums and saying "My PC can't run Crysis so you never should have released it. Everyone please go back to playing Far Cry"

No man :)

If I felt the game was worth it, dam right I would. But from what I've seen, its a replica of the whole mess of Arma1, but just better graphics.

If I felt the game was like .. Arma2 + Ofp content - yes - I would find a way.

I'm not afraid to go through the trouble to upgrade for an amazing game. The problem is.. I already did.. for Arma1.. and it proved to be a waste of my money and time. Hell I haven't booted the dam thing up in like half a year.. it's just.. useless to me.

I am *not* saying I won't upgrade for better graphics, etc, I am saying I won't Solely for that purpose.. when everything else is lacking..

Ofp on it's release was no major spectacle in its appearance, but man! Look at the content, the voice acting.. the way missions were set up in the campaign.. the whole thing is so personalized.. it was worth every dime.. so was Resistance.

Tell me that Arma2 has the great in game content I can enjoy similar to Ofp and I'll buy it.. well.. maybe..

Still leaves the major problem from what I read.. Arma2 no longer supports large scale combat operations due to lag.. which to me, removes a huge part of what I thought Ofp/Arma was all about man.

---------- Post added at 12:04 AM ---------- Previous post was Yesterday at 11:54 PM ----------

Hey

Seems everyone is basically defending the game here, so I'm dropping my posts, everyone seems content with the game as it is, and that;s awesome :)

i'n retrospect, for a game that, according to the information I have been gathering, is barely staying afloat, along with the company, seems sort of odd to me.

The solid reasons I have pointed out are the reasons I for one will not buy the game, nor even attempt to port KolCon over to it, because Arma2 won't even support medium to large scale battles on the average pc.

I know enough, to know there will always be a loyal following to the Arma Genre.. even if it gets to the point it seems it has in the provided content.

I also know, tons of people, maybe even millions, will be hugely unhappy with a game that lands in their lap without quality in game content provided by the company itself.. Again.. modders in general cannot provide an equal to the quality of in game content provided by a major gaming company.

My rant is over gentlemen :)

Take it ease.

Edited September 22, 2009 by Guest

[LJF 0]

Oooookkkaaayyy. I'm quite happy with ArmA2 to be honest, it's features I want (FLIR, armour penetration, flares etc, stuff like that).

The battles in ArmA2 are huge (I just did 1000 soldiers on mine and it ran at 30 or so FPS). I did 800 in ArmA1 and [the same computer] got around about 5 fps.

I get what you mean about content out of the box, it's not really good when coming from CoD, but that's like ... retarded or something. ArmA isn't about stock content, if anything, the stock content is used as a filler/tutorials until mods/addons are released. I still haven't played much of the A2 campaign, probably won't, the editor is where I have fun.

Also, oh my gods, I hated Oblivion sooooo much, I was expecting so much after having played Morrowind for years, I played until I got out of the dungeon and then I realised that the world was tiny and concave and full of "life", except life apparently means still robotic and an utterly fake universe to Bethesda. And yes, as said, simple missions, simplified gameplay, boring world etc.

And the early comment about graphics? Oblivion had THE best graphics at the time and killed every computer that tried to run it!

Sorry if I sound angry ... actually ... no I'm not, Oblivion was the pits. ArmA2 isn't perfect but hey, it's the best we've got.

Edit: OFP had the best graphics out when it was released, well, I thought so, I remember seeing the screenshot on Maldon (from the first person with the M16) and I swear I must have jimped back then in 2001.

[dmarkwick 261]

Seems everyone is basically defending the game here, so I'm dropping my posts, everyone seems content with the game as it is, and that;s awesome

Wait a minute, you're the one complaining about the content you haven't even experienced, and you're dismissing the opinions of people who HAVE experienced it.

I don't think you wish to be taken seriously.

Toodles :)

[Alex72 1]

Now we move to Arma 2, and apparently the requirements are even steeper??

LOL! Yes games coming out a couple of years later usually needs better hardware. How stupid do you have to be to not understand that?

Wow...