iGnitor

I understand the point you are making and of course it would be an ideal situation, but like I said before, it is not a fair comparison because we are not comparing like for like. This comparison is heading for a very general direction which does not serve the work done here any justice. Simple definitions are exactly that, too simple for such a case and it's a very linear way of thinking. Why don't we compare it to mario land in that case? Would it be fair to do such a thing because that is very much bug free and will never suffer any performance issues.

1.Relative to what exactly? Relative to Tetris? Yes. To Battlefield? To some degree. To any other game in the genre? Can't be answered... basically, you made a point without realistic premise is what I am trying to demonstrate. It's like trying to compare Apple's with Orange's. 2.Agreed Well this game is still on beta level due the huge amount of bugs and the apparent lack of testing before publishing. In a normal case the serious bugs has been found and fixed in the software before it is published. Being on beta or release level is not a matter of comparison to another software. Software is normally on the release level when the serious bugs has been found through beta testing and fixed and also the number of bugs has been reduced to the acceptable level. At the moment the software quality and the enormous amount of bugs makes the game almost unplayable. This game is not on beta level if this is the quality standard of BIS release policy. In that case I wonder if BIS has any kind of official quality certificate. Like I said, it is also a subjective issue and this would apply for a fair few. Not to say it really is not objective for some because I'm sure it will be. It's not always easy to test on what is in reality an infinite number of system combos. I'm sure an average system is taken into account during testing at the very least using what would be considered as a mainstream setup. It would be the logical thing to do afterall. If you can understand the issues with releasing a beta to the masses i.e. more than just a small group for the closed beta, you will realise it can create a lot of negative press. A game as complex as this will no doubt be prone to more bugs on intial release with the various systems and scenarios not previously experienced. Yes, more testing can always be done, but there will never be a guaratee of bug free gameplay or major performance issues. Who's to say what systems were used? We don't know for sure, but I know from experience most people got a good version of OFP in the end so I can say with some certainty, the game wouldn't be released with heavy issues, but some smaller ones found are inevitable with the devs knowledge on release. Anything else that develops through time with further patches is just bad luck and I'm sure even after a decent amount of testing is done. These are software professionals afterall and are forced to have decent knowledge of hardware too. No one likes bad press at the end of the day. There are bugs, but not of the magnitude you describe. Again, this can be subjective. My initial point was, what sets the bar of what a beta state for this particular game is? I don't believe it's fair to call it a beta by simple definition, rather it should be compared on a relative scale of the same genre, and in this case, few such scales exist.

1.Relative to what exactly? Relative to Tetris? Yes. To Battlefield? To some degree. To any other game in the genre? Can't be answered... basically, you made a point without realistic premise is what I am trying to demonstrate. It's like trying to compare Apple's with Orange's. Although, I would say this is a subjective issue. 2.Agreed

Oh you mean like Playstation 3?

That would only make his words true. Â No EA game is this buggy, you must admit it. Â Who cares about the patch anyway. Â The question is when can they fix the important issues and get this game lifted from its fall of doom. Â I don't care about pacthes anymore, If gameplay is not fixed by the American release, I'm giving up on this game forever. If only you knew how much those guys are overworked and how tight deadlines are with their company culture, you would also then come to realise how many shortcuts they are forced to take. They make some great games, but also make them under a much greater deal of pressure than a lot of other developers. Maybe not a bad thing, but surely not a good thing either. I always like to see games showing their full potential..

Angel of Death- realise how complex the game design is before making criticisms. Solving one problem may lead to another and the dynamic nature of this game can explain what I mean. How many "similar" games like this have you seen? I can only put forward Operation Flashpoint and perhaps Soldner. No other. Yes it has lots of bugs there is no denying that. Probably more than others too. But many new games do, and more complex ones would most likely have more still. It is the very nature of PC games that get released early that they will usually be patched. If you wish to have almost bug free games I would turn to consoles, but see if you can get the same level of depth in there which I doubt you will see anytime soon.

Quite impressed so far. Obviously there are some issues but it seems to be coming along well. Seems obvious now that high end machines actually give the worst performance with this game and average systems do it better. I felt the OFP magic touch!

So after playing ArmA on MP, I've come up with the following; -Netcode is much improved over OFP but could still do with further refinement to bring to up to the levels on Battleifield Series or closer to a LAN experience. BF does handle vehicles well and this is what I notice most about it. Although people may disagree, if you compare an average game of say BF2 and BF2142 to the ArmA/OFP series, you will notice far smoother movements in gameplay. -Playability is very decent. Can feel a touch sluggish at times, but overall good. OFP had a slight edge over this but not by much. -Ability to join during play is a big plus. -Good atmospheric detail. I'm liking it very much so far. -Nice sounds effects... Perormance issues on my AMD 3200+ 64-bit: None whatsoever and generally plays very smooth. Improvements to make: Online play performance- sweeten this up some more by refining the code that effects online play and lag issues and you have a sweet deal already. That's my personal take on it. Single Player- To be tested. Overall, it's coming along well but as always, it's not perfect and needs much fixing in quite a few areas. A postive result so far.

I suspect certain new machines are suffering from "memory leak" problems due to their newer architecture... therefore I supect older machines will probably run the games with fewer/no real issues

Just what I was waiting for but I will have to confirm since I got the game this morning and it's still sealed.

Thanks for all your input. I'm glad to see we're all like-minded players so that in my opinion is no doubt an excellent thing since hopefully we can help shape this game and future editions. I have nothing but respect for BIS since they are the only developer I truly consider a 'dark horse' in the industry. I want nothing less than to see them succeed since I don't believe many developers share the same ideals as them (perhaps Wings Simulations, Germany at best). Still, like a poster mentioned, there is always hope and with all the advances in software engineering and hardware improvements I expect them only to go forward. Let's just hope they maintain the quality of the series. As for what I said regarding Battlefield netcode, DICE is the talent that made the online netcode really quite good for a game that also includes vehicles. I can't think of any other titles that match up to it (at least at the time) in terms of online performance (specifically BF1942 release). What I loved about OFP- -The general atmosphere i.e. war torn planes, dull colour tones and the general war feel (no I'm not a sadist but I can appreciate what is almost poetic ) - The sounds- Rolling tanks from great distances, Mi-24's with paratroopers etc dropping over your location. Music might be a bit cheesy at times but I can honestly say I thought it was pretty much perfect for this game. - Seclusion- The feeling of being in a huge place, on your own (in solo missions) and suddenly seeing a small platoon over the hills on the horizon... same can be said in the opposite way for having an own platoon though - Immersion- the feeling of truly being in the world of OFP and a game that could actually make one go on edge i.e. fear of being shot... the first such game for me - Simulation- keeping true to life as is possible whilst maintaining playability... Â things like locational damage, authentic weapons, realistic carrying load etc...

So I have been playing OFP since release and was to purchase ArmA. However, after playing the demo, it feels disloyal to OFP and somewhat flawed in terms of the atmosphere and simulation OFP provided. Of course I take the demo with a pinch of salt, but I remember the original OFP demo being far better and a real technological advancement for its time. To this day no one has truly surpassed the concept. I have this horrible feeling that the enthusiasm the devs had back then somehow just faded over time. Correct me if I'm wrong. But what I really want to get to is ArmA. So, does it truly beat the original OFP series? Most importantly, is the multiplayer aspect enjoyable through being lag free as I found lag is what usually kills a game, not even the playability in most cases. OFP suffered from terrible NetCode and was truly enjoyable over LAN. But other series such as Battlefield have a good online netcode. Someone fill me in. Cheers.

That doesn't actually make sense. All I know is that Dice.se spent around 3 years optimising the netcode. BF1942 is the smoothest game I've ever played online as I never get lag or very rarely and that is the reason you regularly see 10000+ people online at any given time. Another point to note is that there is a game in development by a german company called Soldner: Secret Wars and manages to have the biggest map seen in any game so far, have the most vehicles and also destructable landscapes yet maintains netcode, as like BF1942 it is being created solely for online play with up to 128 players online. Click <span style='color:blue'>here</span> to see what I'm on about.

So do BIS plan to fix the netcode with a future patch or not?

I just wanted to ask why the netcode in OFP and even the optimised Resistance game is so poor. I played this game when it first came out in 2001 and saw that it had huge potential. There are other games like Soldner (www.secretwars.net) in development trying to do what OFP did but with better netcode etc. Everything else about this game is really excellent, if only the multiplayer was better. I'd rather not wait to see the improvement of this in OFP2 as by that time there will be way too much competition. Soldner is a sleeper title and is relatively unknown, but when it does get released I'm certain it will surpass even the great BF1942. BF1942 was based on multiplayer as is Soldner. OFP has and still could potentially have the ability to have both a superb single player and multiplayer experience. This is a game in my opinion that is highly underestimated by some people. BF1942 got the netcode smooth even with heavy action and far more players so I'm wondering why this can't be implemented in OFP even with a patch.