Jump to content
🛡️FORUMS ARE IN READ-ONLY MODE Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
Bulletstopper

Arma 1 vs Arma 2 single play

Recommended Posts

Imho after OFP:Resistance BIS lost a bit of their interest and dedication to make great campaigns.

Armed Assault - erm, wait... no replayable mission maybe only few of QG.

Arma2 - as long as the AI is screwed up you wont even think about "replaying".

I dont think that developers or beta-testers really take time to test missions in SP and MP - perhaps they have to "rush" through because of the release.

On this end its sad too see that BIS is acting like many other devs and releasing their games without proper testing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think one of the biggest issues BIS has had to face is a severe decrease in monetary support after their split with Codemasters. You can't deny that certain parts of OFP were probably only possible with Codemasters' support, which, for me, seems to mainly be in the campaign part. Voice acting has declined as they have to hire less expensive voice actors, or even ones who don't charge, and they end up having to succumb to publishers demanding certain dates for release so they end up rushing it out the door without proper testing.

However, what a lot of people seem to think is that OFP was always this perfect gem that it is with 1.96. I mean, look at that number. That's almost v2.00. No wonder it's perfect. v1.00 is the complete polar opposite of v1.96. It was probably worse than ArmA was at release, and much, much worse than ArmA II. In fact, I would say ArmA II was in the best condition at release out of all of BIS' games. If we give them time, BIS will perfect it, just like they did with OFP and ArmA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did BIS changed anything in Armed Assault or QG missions/campaign?

Guess they generally dont bother to look at their own missions/campaigns as long as there are no showstoppers or gamebreakers. Would be great to see that BIS will change missions according to type of gameplay:

SP - more narrative with additional informations and cutscenes

MP - more mission for small and bigger groups of players, basic storyline

Nobody would get mad if there are some different missions in SP and MP as long as it not breaking the whole story. Perhaps adjusting default missions more would be better eg CTI/Warfare mission for SP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OFP CWC

ARMA

Arma 2

this is the order in wich i like the campaigns..

OFP was awesome and i was a die hard call of duty gamer when i first played it.

Armed Assault was still pretty cool imo

ArmA 2 is horrible :p but thats my opinion

You prefer the ArmA1 campaign over the ArmA2 campaign? Explain. :confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You prefer the ArmA1 campaign over the ArmA2 campaign? Explain. :confused:

Because it was simple you're placed in a map and you have an objective. Arma 2 you have to choose what u do first and cross this big map and it's kinda not what i like :p The first 3 or 4 missions in the ArmA 2 campaign were cool though. Also you played diferent roles in that war. A helo pilot a foot soldier etc..

Also you get the feeling that you're actually playing a game instead of having a program in wich u can move and shoot lol that's how i see arma 2 xD

The cutscenes weren't top notch but I liked it. Also the the fact that fight big battles with a lot of men and that you don't have to always keep em safe cause the mission doesn't end :p

The missions in the campaign were also better.. this one missions where you're at night and you take a group of humvee's to get to an airport or whatever we're also nice cause you get atacked not knowing where the enemy is and you put on your night vision goggles and it made me feel like i'm watching CNN Afghanistan footage.

in ArmA 2 it's just.. "Here you have a map, and some objectives do whatever you want with it" :p The addition of sniper missions in ArmA 1 is also cool.

But that's my opinion, and sorry for my English :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

arma 2 campaign missions were overly ambitions as proven by the numerous reported scripting errors.

they should have split it into smaller pieces. instead of having 4 towns you need to assault, 2 people you need to eliminate, 1 guy you need to capture, etc. all in one mission...

split these tasks into smaller sub missions so that all the involved scripts don't become too overwhelming for the engine, and for players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must be missing something with Arma1 and OFP. Both look bad to me. I couldn't get into something that looks that bad. They look like Atari compared to the graphics in Arma2. I know OFP is like a sacred bible to all you guys but I don't get it. ( i know i'll get bashed for worshiping them)

I am coming from Battlefield 2. And Arma2 was like taking a giant breath of fresh air. Sure some of the missions have some problems and could be done better, but what game isn't like that? You can't make everyone happy. I went from playing maps about a square mile or two in size with huge lag, to this game with miles and miles of free roaming with no lag at all until the very last mission. I did HATE Razor team though. Looks like they came out of a bad Rambo movie. I would have liked to use U.S. equipment, but you can do alot with the entire Harvest Red campaign. It added realism while still making it fun. Even if i had to drive a couple miles to get to a mission. It isn't just 48 people running around killing anything that moves.

The scenario missions on the other hand are horrible. They give you the ability to buy more units and equipment but there is no time for that. I have to go take down one of the tasks in order to get money, then i have to make it back to the base in order to buy more units or better equipment. By the time you get back to the "purchase area" half of the tasks have already failed or been accomplished by the other units. When you get back to the battle there is nothing left.

But Eagle Wing? I really don't understand why so many of you love that but hate Harvest Red. You fly in an Apache that belongs to the ARMY, which weren't in country. Then you have to shoot down Russian planes that just let you kill them with no one getting a clue to you or fighting back. You can't fire the hydra rockets. I guess it's common for an apache, in wartime, to fly around with empty hydra pods. --Then the Nuke, which was the coolest part of the mission and weather-- Then you end up teaming up with the people you were just trying to kill 5 minutes earlier (and one that you personally shot down) and they are your best friends. And trust you giving you a gun. And from talking to them, they think they are retaliating from a NUKE that the U.S. fired first. But don't worry they are your friends just for the hell of it. In reality, if they didn't kill you on site, they would have beaten the hell out of you and taken you prisoner.

THEN TO TOP IT OFF, you, a U.S. pilot is supposed to kill another U.S. soldier so you can steal a boat from him and give it to your new russian best friends.

Come on, you guys can't talk all this about Harvest Red and then be blown away by a 10 minute mission that makes no sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I must be missing something with Arma1 and OFP. Both look bad to me. I couldn't get into something that looks that bad. They look like Atari compared to the graphics in Arma2. I know OFP is like a sacred bible to all you guys but I don't get it. ( i know i'll get bashed for worshiping them)

I am coming from Battlefield 2. And Arma2 was like taking a giant breath of fresh air. Sure some of the missions have some problems and could be done better, but what game isn't like that? You can't make everyone happy. I went from playing maps about a square mile or two in size with huge lag, to this game with miles and miles of free roaming with no lag at all until the very last mission. I did HATE Razor team though. Looks like they came out of a bad Rambo movie. I would have liked to use U.S. equipment, but you can do alot with the entire Harvest Red campaign. It added realism while still making it fun. Even if i had to drive a couple miles to get to a mission. It isn't just 48 people running around killing anything that moves.

1st part of EW sucked, but after nuke it was cool :) BIS wanted to show that after nuclear war it won't matter on which side you fight :) only the strongest survive, so that means that you had to teamup with someone. BTW that pilot wasn't very happy :D he even threatened me, so i don't think that we were best friends :)

The scenario missions on the other hand are horrible. They give you the ability to buy more units and equipment but there is no time for that. I have to go take down one of the tasks in order to get money, then i have to make it back to the base in order to buy more units or better equipment. By the time you get back to the "purchase area" half of the tasks have already failed or been accomplished by the other units. When you get back to the battle there is nothing left.

But Eagle Wing? I really don't understand why so many of you love that but hate Harvest Red. You fly in an Apache that belongs to the ARMY, which weren't in country. Then you have to shoot down Russian planes that just let you kill them with no one getting a clue to you or fighting back. You can't fire the hydra rockets. I guess it's common for an apache, in wartime, to fly around with empty hydra pods. --Then the Nuke, which was the coolest part of the mission and weather-- Then you end up teaming up with the people you were just trying to kill 5 minutes earlier (and one that you personally shot down) and they are your best friends. And trust you giving you a gun. And from talking to them, they think they are retaliating from a NUKE that the U.S. fired first. But don't worry they are your friends just for the hell of it. In reality, if they didn't kill you on site, they would have beaten the hell out of you and taken you prisoner.

THEN TO TOP IT OFF, you, a U.S. pilot is supposed to kill another U.S. soldier so you can steal a boat from him and give it to your new russian best friends.

Come on, you guys can't talk all this about Harvest Red and then be blown away by a 10 minute mission that makes no sense.

1st part of EW sucked, but after nuking it was rly cool :) Everyone became aggresive because everyone wanted to survive, but only the strongest survive. You had to choose to die or to teamup with russians

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll put it this way:

OFP: awesome. I'd rather play a fun game with dated graphics than attempt to work around bugs and achieve a decent framerate. The campaigns were amazing even if the guns were WAY too accurate. HD addon makes it pretty fun but sometimes a little too inaccurate.

ArmA: I agree with a lot of people. Too much "you and you go take on that whole company" garbage. Pretty fun, but jeez that island was just... weird...

ArmA2: Buggier than unpatched clear sky. The map is amazing and graphics CAN be good, you just play a slideshow. The free-roam missions and everything pre-warfare was fun... if I choose to not play something else and work around the annoying bugs instead. One man down = mission over end of the world = lame. I like a challenge but when I have to save every five minutes because the AI fucks up (yes, thats right, your micro ai still (often) sucks) then I just don't want to play anymore. Then all I ever hear is fanboys telling me ways to work around the bug... um no, if I have to work around a bug, I'm not playing, simple as that. I still can't buy my squad weapons, the buying is all messed up. I can go on forever. I know there aren't as many patches as OFP has had over the years but ArmA2 is only now getting to what should have been released in my opinion.

This is all my opinion, I'm not hating on bis or fanboys, just that it can get annoying, you know. ;) Bis can and does make some damn good games. Ofp/Arma's is still my favorite series, but sometimes I wonder why I bother with ArmA2. I can TRY to have fun with ArmA2, or i CAN have fun with ofp...

Edited by GRS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both are 1/10 compared to OFP:CWC campaign.

Please cut the leading crap already and make it like OFP:CWC where you are a grunt just trying to make it out alive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Both are 1/10 compared to OFP:CWC campaign.

Please cut the leading crap already and make it like OFP:CWC where you are a grunt just trying to make it out alive.

Yeah i'd love to see a campaing like cwc :yay: that would be cool

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×