What happened to the Ofp way?

[Scrub 0]

ROFLOL. Just read the last few pages of this thread. Yes everyone is free to have their own opinion.. Just don't be surprised when those reading about a completely uninformed and bold opinion think the poster is a bit of a jackass. This is great, I wonder where he came from and feels enough impetus to post the conjecture. Honestly, no real hard feelings here, it just caught me completely off guard and is so odd.

Edited September 22, 2009 by Scrub

[madine75 0]

The content of Arma2 fits the requirements for the included missions and campaign just fine. The improvements in AI, graphics and the general mechanics of the engine are great, it's several steps ahead of either OFP or ArmA. I don't have the most amazing PC, but I'm able to play missions with up to several hundred units without too many issues..

I'll echo the sentiments that others have posted, ArmA2 isn't perfect but it's a step further towards perfection. I reinstalled OFP:R recently, to replay the campaigns on newer hardware than I had originally finished them, and they were great fun but lacked the immersion that Arma2 has.

[[GLT] Legislator 66]

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...

I copy that, although I wouldn't express that so harsh ;)

I didn't buy a Q9550 to have better graphics - I bought it to provide the AI with more cpu power.

I didn't buy 4 GB Ram to have better graphics - I bought it to be able to run ArmA II + Dedicated Server on my machine for testing issues.

I didn't buy a new hard disc drive to have better graphics - I bought it to reduce loading times a little bit.

Actually I only bought a GTX 275 to have better graphics :p Besides that, almost every software takes an advantage.

If the OP doesn't want to upgrade because of grahpics ... fine ... but to believe that's the only reason why people are upgrading hardware for a game is naive and a total lack of understanding technology.

[Bulldogs 10]

I didn't buy a new PC for better graphics... I went outside for better graphics, but without anti-aliasing it was very blocky.

I think the OP was based on misinformation. To some part it's about needing better hardware, which as mentioned, all future releasing aim to bring more immersion through better graphics/audio/AI/etc, hence the need to upgrade, I don't know about you but I'm not happy playing Pong anymore.

The other "misinformation" parts are that there's a lack of content and you can't have massive battles (to point out just two parts) which is obviously wrong because many are happy with the amount of content and many have made massive battles (youtube arma 2 1500 AI)

[choco 0]

The OP should try some user-made custom missions, a lot of these are done in the old OFP style, improvements to the AI, especially in combat, mean that great missions can be produced with very little effort from the mission maker, this also means that missions aren't bogged down by excessive scripting either so they run like a dream, even with large numbers of AI.

[Guest]

First off, don't waste your time calling me a loser and an idiot for posting on a game I haven bought.

Excuse me, I went through enough crap in Arma1, and I put MY time in to search out the forums here regarding the information about Arma2. And the results were basically the same - upgraded graphics and ai, but provided content is as bad as it ever was, and again major fps issues.

Beyond this, I see people constantly complaining about mass lag issues, while just trying to play the game in small scale warefare.. and I am supposed to buy this game, that all of you guys are calling me an idiot for not trying first? And spend more money to upgrade to end up being yet another poster "whining" about issues in the "Technical Issues" area?

I put my time in the death zone with Arma1.. I released a huge scripted system called "TownHide" (which is still findable here) which effectively stored and removed all ai from towns but the closest to the player (for Sp only).. Which works in perfection to allow all towns to be mass populated..

I went further, along with CSL's work to provide a universal battle system that worked on all towns, managing over 10 different factions warring across the map..

All of this was done, including artillery, tanks, and troop support during fights.. and I clocked on my pc an average of 25 fps, even during the fights.. This is with a script system that worked on about 30 scripts, about 5000 lines of code.

Now Arma2 comes in and smashes everything, says I need better hardware, indicates people are having tons of issues with even small scale wars.. and I am supposed to expect Kolgujev Conflict Arma to run on much of anyones comp considering what I have read here??

Hell the average town battle spawns about 200 or so ai, plus a few tanks, and some additional artillery.. And according to the many complaints on these forums - it will never work in Arma2.. NEVER (well, maybe in 5 years).

Your all yelling at me, saying I'm an idiot for posting this on a game I havent played... When all I'm doing is conveying a message that is CLEARLY brought forth in the TONS of complaints I have read that are going on and on about Arma2.

Telling me I'm dead wrong is just like telling everyone that is posting tons of problems nearly daily about this game they are delusional..

And again..

This is all apart from the fact.. that the information I have gathered about Arma2's mission content is no different than Arma1.. It's badly done, it's dull..

Excuse me if I want to buy a game that put's a huge effort into the mission quality.. It just so happens I want to enjoy a plethora of huge quality missions provided with a game I decide to buy.. and if it's not there.. I really don't want to buy it anyhow.

Everyone has their opinion. My opinion is not invalidated just because I have not bought the game.. and further on.. Had I bought the game.. you likely would have seen EXACTLY the same topic and posts come up from me after having played it.. The major difference there, is I was stupid enough to not learn from Arma1. and not pay attention to the warning signs alover the forums here about Arma2.. and ended up spending many hours, and money upgrading for a game that had no business being on the shelf (well it's really not on the shelf anyhow) in the first place.

And that's it from me. I am, along with anyone else, allowed their opinion.. Trying to persuade people to buy a game that is as incomplete as Arma1 was in it's released version.. and saying it's just great in almost every way and worth the money spent to upgrade plus buy the game is really not the truth.. its *your* opinion.. that of which tons of gamers out there would not share the same opinion about.

Edited September 23, 2009 by Guest

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Since this thread is party about Bethesda games, I'd like to add:

Daggerfall was the best in the series so far. Non linear main story with several paths iirc. A decent skill set. And an insane amount of land.

Morrowind was dumbed down significantly, with linear main story and reduced skill set.

Oblivion even worse, to the point of being console friendly.

Yet, today I would say Daggerfall and Oblivion "gave" me the most, but it did need some mods to do so. That is, it was awesome until the Oblivion gates, then it just became a repetitive boring mess. Also, the voice acting sucks in both the two latter titles. If that's the quality, better take it out.

But I'm not sure if I'll continue to play amy more sequels if they can't come up with a decent storyline(s) like Daggerfall had. The story is everything to such games, and it needs to be complex. But visuals and audio adds a great deal of important ambience as well, and should not be neglected.

A common problem has always been the power levelling I'm able to do. If they added twists and uncertin directions and plenty of spinoffs to the main quest, it would add to the replayability of the game, instead of finishing "all" off with the same character. It would be nice if playing it a second and third time, that different approaches to the end goal was used. I guess that takes too much effort though.

Back on topic.

Not sure what you are talking about Special Ed. I find the campaign extremely well done, although being somewhat bugged (especially eary on). Also, you can't do a game based solely on content. It might appeal only to the old OFP fans, who of many will now have another life. Why make a game for 10.000 remaining fans when you need sales up in the millions, to pay the developing bills? Content amount alone just doesn't do that. Graphics and eye candy does.

I didn't play much campaign in OFP, it was just too hard for me at the time (I came from Unreal Tournament, so ignore my stupidity). But I played the OFP campaigns in Arma1, and although decent enough, I can't see what all the fuzz is about from todays gaming standards. Might have been uber story telling back in the day, but not now. Frankly, I find the Arma2 campaign much better. You're part of a single team the whole time. You get to know your men. And you do assignments that would be typical for such a unit. It's quite flexible, especially some of the missions. And it's not just about fighting all the time, but more military "work".

To finalize. Both BIS and Bethesda give us looooooong games (BIS for multiplayer, and Bethesda for singleplayer) that easily weights up for the added costs of content addons. These games I spend thousands of hours on. Most other games, especially FPS games, tend to grow old before reaching hundred hours. Some even less than ten. Is it worth the money. You bet!

[LJF 0]

Like I said, I had a game with 1000 AI and it worked fine for me.

And the quality of missions is far higher than OFP/ArmA1 - well, slightly higher than OFP, ArmA1's missions ... let's not go there :D

[andersson 285]

About negative feedback on arma2 engine and content on this forum. Im 100% positive they are all true. BUT. If I made up my opinion based on them I wouldnt happilly play arma2 now. I am, amongst many, that doesnt have big problems with the arma2 engine and dont mind the content as it works so far for me (I mostly play my own missions though so no big deal for me anyway).

The thing with a forum is that the people with problems are most visible. So even if they are right its far from the whole truth.

What I did, as I did to arma, was to read up about the problems people had. Then I made my conclusion based on other peoples bad experiences and bought my hardware.

And as I do have played arma2 I must say it is a wast improvement over arma and ofp. Yes, it is more hw-demanding. But as someone pointed out that demand is not only because of graphics. Better AI need more CPU, and I find the arma2 AI very challenging in a good way.

With all this said. I am fairly good at hardware. I am very familiar with the BIS genre (know how to tweak cfg and so on). I guess a complete stranger that want a plug and play game and use a non optimised computer will not be that impressed.

But you Special Ed, Im sure you too have good knowledge of all that HW and tweaking. I base that on you doing research and what you have done as scripts.

What you should do imho is to see all the negative posts about arma2 as information for you of what not to do. Do it as me and find out what works instead. Because there are people that can play arma2 ;)

I would love to see your work in arma2. And I think it would work better now as arma2 supports much more AI than arma (and OFP).

[Bulldogs 10]

Special Ed, all we're saying is that you keep stating that the game has a lack of content, doesn't run well, etc, and we're not saying people don't feel this way, obviously a lot do.

But to signify you're own logic, you're complaining that people are ignoring these comments of lack of content and the such, yet you've just had 6 pages of posts saying that they run the game well, and love the content, which you have in turn basically told them that they are wrong because it doens't fit with your arguement.

Just as I keep saying to people, the game has some bugs and problems, but if you just read the complaints and troubleshooting threads then ignore the threads of people who are happy with the game, not to mention the thousands of players that don't even touch the forums, then obviously you're limiting yourself to a lack of information because you've already chosen to follow one side without having the material to accurately develop your own opinion.

Basically, you can voice the opinion of many people and say that these people aren't happy with the content, but when people say "I'm happy with the content" you can't call those people wrong and argue against their point of view based on the experiences of others.

Edited September 23, 2009 by Bulldogs

[viibez 10]

Special ED is right, most of you choose to disagree, idk why, head under a rock perhaps! Arma 2 offers nothing new at all, sheez u still cant drive a vehicle into the back of aircraft, or fast rope from heli's (without some fancy script!) - these are things that were tackled in OFP, how many years ago..? and the AI are the same crazy guys lol.. new graphics is all, yeah looks nice, but no long time "IMMERSION" like ofp, that was soo sexii for its time.. arma2 was thrown together imo, campaign had nothing of a story like ofp, wheres all the sexii cutscenes (speakin of them i cant remember how to make a cutscene in the editor, email help pls!?, triggers , effects yeah, waypoints effects yeah :s!!) ah all this talk, i feel like makin a mission now :) but hang on

Another thing is "missing features", the community asked for since OFP.

- Why can't we shoot from moving vehicles? VERY TRUE

- Why can't we dive under water? (Navy Seals, U-Boat warfare, etc.) LOL

- Why is there no transport system for: vehicles/ammo/fuel/etc.

- Fastroping from helicopters. VERY TRUE

- Two optics on weapons like G36 and many other modern weapons today.

- Better control of grenade throwing.(think about CQB) *click* lol YEAH dodgey huh

- 'add other important things right here'

ALL OF THE ABOVE IS HUGE, because other shooters have these options, and they sell MILLIONS of copies!!! COD4 Far Cry 2, epic games on a smaller scale. but they ironed out the bugs, very very important. best thing about ARMA is the fact it will last as long as the community continues to make it last, the editor is great and the open source-ness (if thats what u call it) of the game and the ability for addons is endless. . . (so its content christmas everyday :P) but ah the bugs lol, there is 1 too many of dem :) if i had a nade at any stage during the campaign, i would have surely lobbed it @ my pc numerous times. NUMEROUS. (did i mention NUMEROUS!? lol)

--WHISPER quote ""I couldn't care less about most of the things you listed"" DUDE WHAT? so u dont want the game to advance into the next generation of gaming, are u still playing with OFP? Dude the things listed are REALISTIC things in army life or realism in general!! wth :s (i dont call ppl "dude" very often but i have to here!) lmao.. we want IMMERSION, fast rope is immersion to me, & standing or shooting from a moving vehicle is pretty standard since the turn of the millenium!!! ( i tend to exaggerate, only by a year or so.) And LOL it is not about performance, its about a balance of gameplay (- frustration) = good performance & good game :p

lol sorry for the book..

Mortein the bugs & Sexii up the new campaign ftw.

Edited September 23, 2009 by viibez
bad ref::

[Deadfast 43]

ALL OF THE ABOVE IS HUGE, because all other shooters have these options, and they sell MILLIONS of copies!!! COD4 Far Cry 2, epic games on a smaller scale. but they ironed out the bugs, very very important.

So you're saying ARMA 2 would sell millions of copies if it had no bugs, diving, shooting from vehicles and fastropes?

Sorry, I don't think so.

Besides, Far Cry 2 is the worst example you could have used. It is the most artificially prolonged, annoying and boring game I have ever played.

Sure, it was good and entertaining in the start, but when I had to shoot through the same exact checkpoint for the millionth time I had just about enough.

[NZXSHADOWS 0]

Arma 2 is awesome. very happy with it. an the purchase of my new video card. But now you Mr Spec ED just ruined it. lol, Im seeing that there is alot of features and added content that we should have in the game by now. I feel like the graphics are there but the gameplay aspect isnt even close. OMFG i can cross over a fence. WOOHOO!!!! But theres something thats going to be even worse. Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising is just around the corner. An if it delivers what we are missing then some might take a break from playing BIS games. since alot of stuff that is in demand is being held back an not released. But is released for the VBS series. I wish that BIS would make a choice either go full Military or go full GAMER.Its like haveing your cake an eating it too. But someone is getting screwed at the end. but thats something i shouldnt talk about. Im just saying we are so close to 2010 an not really seeing a huge difference from OFP *- the graphics* back in 2001. Use Rainbow Six series as an example. Look at how much it has changed. I know BIS is a small company an have accomplished alot. But the game play is very slowly evolving while the graphics are advancing overall. I could point out the simple stuff but whats the point.

[PeterEyres 0]

haha to be fair I prefered the early Rainbow Six to all the new Las Vegas crap, it had soul a bit like OFP

but yes, OFP was amazing, so ahead of its time it was untrue, okay it took until 1.96 to be a truly solid game, its a shame were now approaching 2010 and it hasnt really moved on that much, graphically yes...net code? sadly no.

[Bulldogs 10]

I think the immersion in Arma 2 has increased significantly. Anyone who disagrees with me should load up Flashpoint and Arma 1 and really compare it (I still laugh when I watch them run in Arma 1 from 3rd person view)

That said, I have to agree that I wish there was more. Like shooting out of a vehicle would be good (I saw Far Cry 2 mentioned, not a good example since you are the only driver), fastropes would be good too, and diving under water, although none of those things really work well for the setting of the game, they would work well for special service mods (SWAT/SAS/etc), although they don't really fit in with the campaign so I guess that's why they weren't thought of.

I also think that the overall feel of movement was greatly increased over the earlier games, until you hit a fence and slowly step over it while under heavy fire.

[whisper 0]

Special ED is right, most of you choose to disagree, idk why, head under a rock perhaps! Arma 2 offers nothing new at all, sheez u still cant drive a vehicle into the back of aircraft, or fast rope from heli's (without some fancy script!) - these are things that were tackled in OFP, how many years ago..? and the AI are the same crazy guys lol.. new graphics is all, yeah looks nice, but no long time "IMMERSION" like ofp, that was soo sexii for its time.. arma2 was thrown together imo, campaign had nothing of a story like ofp, wheres all the sexii cutscenes (speakin of them i cant remember how to make a cutscene in the editor, email help pls!?, triggers , effects yeah, waypoints effects yeah :s!!) ah all this talk, i feel like makin a mission now :) but hang on

Another thing is "missing features", the community asked for since OFP.

- Why can't we shoot from moving vehicles? VERY TRUE

- Why can't we dive under water? (Navy Seals, U-Boat warfare, etc.) LOL

- Why is there no transport system for: vehicles/ammo/fuel/etc.

- Fastroping from helicopters. VERY TRUE

- Two optics on weapons like G36 and many other modern weapons today.

- Better control of grenade throwing.(think about CQB) *click* lol YEAH dodgey huh

- 'add other important things right here'

ALL OF THE ABOVE IS HUGE, because other shooters have these options, and they sell MILLIONS of copies!!! COD4 Far Cry 2, epic games on a smaller scale. but they ironed out the bugs, very very important. best thing about ARMA is the fact it will last as long as the community continues to make it last, the editor is great and the open source-ness (if thats what u call it) of the game and the ability for addons is endless. . . (so its content christmas everyday :P) but ah the bugs lol, there is 1 too many of dem :) if i had a nade at any stage during the campaign, i would have surely lobbed it @ my pc numerous times. NUMEROUS. (did i mention NUMEROUS!? lol)

Would you carefully read the original poster complaints, you would see that he is absolutely NOT saying this, quite the contrary. The guy want content, in terms of campaigns and missions. Not features. That's what people are adressing here, not the lack of feature X, Y or Z.

--WHISPER quote ""I couldn't care less about most of the things you listed"" DUDE WHAT? so u dont want the game to advance into the next generation of gaming, are u still playing with OFP? Dude the things listed are REALISTIC things in army life or realism in general!! wth :s (i dont call ppl "dude" very often but i have to here!) lmao.. we want IMMERSION, fast rope is immersion to me, & standing or shooting from a moving vehicle is pretty standard since the turn of the millenium!!! ( i tend to exaggerate, only by a year or so.) And LOL it is not about performance, its about a balance of gameplay (- frustration) = good performance & good game :p

You seem to read things really too quickly and overlook the points.

Most of your "advances" would be done by now and accepted by community if BI would let addons be downloaded from servers.

And when you read the feedbacks, sorry, but performance issues and bugs have killed A2 10 times more than missing features

[Guest]

Hey -

Just wanted to say one last thing here.

I never had any desire to turn this topic into a giant 'argument'.

I posted this in the Suggestions area because I have felt, since Arma1.. and since I have read the forums here regarding Arma2, that there huge critical things missing from the game that *I* feel very strongly were huge selling points to Ofp.

I made these suggestions, many may disagree, that's fine. I ended up having an issue with a few folks telling me my 'concerns' are invalid, etc.. I should look into getting the game and just playing modded content.. etc - Like I said man, that is *your* opinion, I already clearly stated that I am fully aware of the modded material, and clearly stated that I would like to not have that as my primary source for great content when I buy the game. And I stated I felt this was reason enough to not go through all of the trouble of upgrading my system for a game that lacks great quality mission content. I also stated I don't like the facts I'm hearing about mass fps issues, in a game platform that in the past has been designed to support large scale ware fare right off the shelf.

Everyone has their right to their own opinion on these matters. But attacking someone's concerns and telling them they are wrong doesent make any sense, when those concerns are clearly valid here. I wouldn't have replied the way I did a few times if people would have just made their own opinion here without the part's involving attacking me somewhat directly for my opinions on these issues.

Anyhow, I said my feeling, which I've wanted to say since I got Arma1 off the shelf till seeing the info about Arma2.. and I've gotten it out.

Also I have a great respect for the Ofp/Arma modding community, and have enjoyed very much working with a number of folks and interacting here on the forums with them. Good memories.

Later.

[froggyluv 2136]

The inherent problem with your speculative argument is that the evidence doesn't support your argument. You continue to claim that Arma2 doesn't hold up in the "Content" department which I can only surmise by your previous posts means "the games missions and stroryline." Sorry, I visit this froum daily and this has to be somewhere near the bottom 5% of complaints about Arma2, so I just don't see how you are drawing your conclusions. Arma1? I would have to agree that the campaign and missions were totally uninteresting and lacking in just about every way. Arm2, totally different animal.

If you were to have made a circumstantial case against releasing a bug-free game or streamlined optimization, I would say based off the troubleshooting thread you would have a valid point. But as it is, the fact that you don't have the game coupled with any sort of general consenus to 'bad content as related to storyline', I just don't see your point at all.

[Bulldogs 10]

Personally I actually like the campaign story line, I also like the way that it's subtly pushed on you, like radio reports about bombings, building relationships with NPC's (although short if you don't follow the side missions) only to have trajedy strike, and as someone mentioned it actually has strong main characters and even stronger side characters (gotta love Simmonds)

The only downside being that some of the missions can take up to 3-4 hours doing random objectives, especially like the warfare missions, that don't bring any part of the story line up, so it kindof becomes like watching a movie but taking a long break every 10 minutes. It ends up a bit incoherant. That said, i still think Arma 2 is worth playing for the story line alone, if not for everything else.

[LJF 0]

Immersion in A2 = the best ever. Like, ever, in anything.

[NZXSHADOWS 0]

Gone. Srry

Edited September 24, 2009 by NZXSHADOWS

[Bulldogs 10]

I think you mean the Armed Assault Campaign and the Queens Gambit Campaign. Combat Operations was just the North American prefix for ArmA.

But yeah, many people say they prefered the Queens Gambit Campaign (the one with the talking) but I prefered the Armed Assault Campaign.

[NZXSHADOWS 0]

missleading

Edited September 24, 2009 by NZXSHADOWS

[Bulldogs 10]

I only have the North American version, but it has the full AAN reporter cut scenes and all, and the Queens Gambit Campaign is the one that starts with the rolling background and the black and white pictures with voice over.

[NZXSHADOWS 0]

lol then im wrong sorry for miss leading an thanks Bulldog for setting me straight.