stakex

Ahhh yea I forgot to factor in the referral code there, my mistake. Still tho, $165 is quite a bit if you don't own many supported games. Perhaps if it was supported more in games outside the flight sim/driving world it would be more appealing to people such as myself. Personally, other then ArmA1 I own TWO games on the list of supported games, WW2 Online (don't play anymore) and Star Wars Galaxies: Jump to Lightspeed which I hardly play anymore. That I think more then anything would be the deciding factor for me... Im sure I'll spend a ton of time with ArmA2, but for $165 I would sure as heck want to use it with something else. An expanded game library might deffinatly be what TrackIR needs to be more viable to people that aren't major sim/raceing fans.

Very nice video I must say, and TrackIR deffinatly is one hell of a cool product... but at $185, I have to side with Sniperwolf572 as I too will not be buying a setup because of the price. Its simply too expensive for what it offers IMO, and is not worth it unless your going to dedicate a compulsive amount of time to ArmA2... and even then I don't think its worth it. If the price ever gets down around $50, I would deffinatly get one tho. But again, thanks for the great video.

Don't really think this is the place for this... but to awnser your question, your generally looking at between $200-$800 depending on the processor you buy. If you go for something a tab bit older like an Intel Core 2 Quad (2.4gig), its gonna be between $200-$300. Newer processors will be more... your best bet to check prices is just go to google shopping and search (be careful buying from some of the sites that come up, especially ones with dirt cheap prices).

I totally agree... Heres a great analogy to the situation. Its like a guy who has an old car that has engine trouble and doesn't run too well at times (OFP/ArmA1), and he sits down to fix it and overhaul his old car so it runs much better, just like a new car. But instead of fixing all the problems under the hood, he gives the car a new paint job, changes the tires, and refills the windshield washer fluid and calls it a day. The car might looks great on the surface, but under the hood the same issues remain. ArmA2s likely going to be a good game... but going by all the latest press, will it be anything more then an ArmA1 mod/expansion? Not very likely. The funny thing is, all the things the community are praising about ArmA2, are the very things they said were the least important things in a game during the OFP days... such as graphics. Its amazing how easily the community can change its tone.

They also have claimed that all the models in the game are new as well... which anyone who has played ArmA, and even OFP knows thats a bit of a stretch, if not an out right lie. They appear to be counting models they might have made very small adujustments/touch ups to as "new"... so its very possible they are doing the same with sounds. Not saying that your not 100% correct (really hope you are), but its never safe to assume that what a developer tells you (and developer, not specificly BIS) is going to be totally accurate and spin free... they are in the bussiness to sell games after all.

You shouldn't trash something you have clearly never actually used. You don't have to get permission from Valve to play your Steam games. There is an offline mode, so your main argument that Steam is garbage is... well garbage. Having the disk is both a plus and a minus. Its nice to actually have something for your $40-50, but disks are easy to break or lose. With something like Steam, as long as you have the net... you have your game. Not saying Steam is any better the retail or anything like that. Idealy we will see retail across the globe on launch day, as well as Steam. Just don't compleatly trash something you have either never used, or don't know anything about. EDIT: If you have a problem running a game in offline mode, a very simple search on google will solve your issue.

Well the first thing that dosn't make any sense with your post is why are you useing a Spanish HMMWV picture to prove your point, and not a picture of an actual USMC HMMWV? Im no expert on military equipment, but even the same equipment can very from country to country... so if your going to be so persistent that BIS fix their USMC HMMWV, then actually use a reference picture of a USMC version. As for your actual complaints... I think part of the problem is the BIS HMMWV model is at least sorta suppose to be an up-armored version. The Up-armored version has the vent grill on the back, and does not seem to have the side exhaust (at least none that I could find). I will give you the slice on the snorkel... that one dosn't seem to make a whole ton of sense. Either way tho, these are very minor complaints that almost no ones going to notice/care about. It is just a game afterall, as long as the HMMWV looks like a HMMWV, is it really that big of an issue if a couple details are off?

I personally think they might have fibbed a little with the "all models are new". I highly doubt they re-modeled vehicles like the AH-1Z from the ground up... and in fact since it looks exactlly the same as the one in ArmA1, Id bet money they didn't. Not to mention allot of the weapons look pretty clear to be the same models as in ArmA1. Personally when they say "all models are new" I think they are including models that were touched up, or re-textured as well as ground-up models. While thats not really a big deal or anything... its not good for the scaling issues OFP/ArmA have stuggled with.

Ahh, didn't know.  Not a military freak and don't know all the vehicles so bow down to you since you must   OK so forget that last pic, not sure why BIS would tell us there is an MLRS then take it out.... lol not really much of a military freak myself... just happen to know what the Avenger is . But its a good question still why the MLRS isn't shown in the vehicle page, unless its one of the things they are keeping hidden till the game comes out.

Actually Rick, that picture is of an Avenger AA system... not a MLRS. Theres quite a big diffrence between the two.

This was an awsome post Ziiip... and it couldn't be more true, this community is esentially built on hypocrisy. I mean common, someone was saying OFP2 was a total failure simply because the weapon model wasn't showing in one of their demo videos. You know what? When I first bought ArmA1 it was a total disaster to the point I couldn't even play it. And it wasn't an early demo video of the game, it was a game I payed for that was far less stable then some alpha build games I have tested. But yet the ArmA community was like "Pfff these things happen, they'll fix it... its no big deal". But forbid some other developer has a relativly small issue in an early demo video and the community is ready to denounce their game as dead, even without knowing much about the gameplay aspect. Its really sad actually to see such immaturity from a community that seems to prides itself on being one of the most mature in the gameing world. I mean can't everyone simply be happy that theres going to be two large scale mil-sims released this year? Back on the actual topic here tho... untill we have the game in our hands we won't be able to tell with game has better graphics. My personal belief is when you crank the graphics on Crysis the models are far sharper, more detailed, and the textures are far better then what we have seen in ArmA2 so far. Where ArmA2 does shine over Cyrsis however is in its "real" look. Crysis might have better graphics, but ArmA2's are far more real looking.

The whole game a massive fail because of a simple bug? Hardly. In fact, in terms of how the game will be at release that bug has NO relevance at all. The only fail is to allow such a bug in a demo version of the game, or thinking the whole game is a massive fail because of it. That dosn't mean I think OFP2 is going to be a great game, or even a good game for that matter... just that your BIS fanboyism got the best of you in the post, thats all.

While Im sure Amazon has done that from time to time.... most of the time the dates they post are dates given by the Publisher that are not official, but rather internal expected dates. Developers and publishers will of course deny the dates until they are 100% sure they can make them. In the even they cannot make the dates, they issue a new expected date and simply say thoes dates were not official and were made up by the sale sites so they don't catch flack for "delaying" the game. Its actually a smart practice, especially for a company like BIS that seems to struggle with their expected dates (delays are good when needed of course)... but don't be so nieve to think these sites are always making up the dates, and that the dates don't have at least a decent chance to be correct. As Raptor pointed out, in 2006 when Amazon posted the date at first it was of course denied to be official, but in fact was correct in the end. In this case however, I hope it is wrong. As much as I want ArmA2, the longer its in development the less chance it will be as bugged as ArmA1 was at release, when it comes out.

Well as far as how well things are going, or will go for BIS in the coming months, can only be awnsered by BIS themself... which I would assume they won't do. They might come out and say "everythings fine", which they likely are... but then again, how many times have we heard that from diffrent companies over the years only to see the compleat oposite weeks later. So even if things are in fact doing great, it makes little sense to make such an announcement. So consider the fact that we have no heard anything as a relativly good sign. Where BIS gets their cash from is yet another question we all can guess at, but only BIS knows. I would guess that a decent portion of their cash does come from VBS sales and contracts, but who knows how much. Lets not forget however, its little secret that ArmA1 was rushed out the door very early to generate cash flow for BIS. I can't imagine they did that because they had a large pile of cash sitting around... and even then sales are ArmA1 couldn't have been smashing. As for the crisis hurting sale? Well I think its more then fair to say ArmA2 has bigger things to worry about then the financial problems... such as the bad reputation of ArmA1, lack of popularity in ArmA2 style games to begin with, the let down of previously stated and now removed features, lack of serious press push to promote the game, and the fact that there is (from the known information) little incentive for the average fan of the series to buy the game if you already have ArmA1. The fact that the worlds economy is currently not doing all that great is near the bottom of ArmA2s list of possible sales troubles IMO. Not to mention BIS's release track record has been a bit iffy in the past, and we might not see ArmA2 till sometime in 2010 (would be a good thing if the games not ready of course), and by then the economy might be doing much better and be even less of an issue. Bottom line is, no one here is really qualified to awnser your questions other then BIS, tho we can all speculate. All we can say with near certainty is that BIS is not going to shelf a game they have been working on for more then half a decade... so ArmA2 will be released, which is the main thing.

What he said.... I want the game as much as the next guy, but I personally am expecting it to be released at the end of next year, or even later. It very likely will be released sooner, and if it is thats great... but I wouldn't expect that. Lets face it, when we first heard about ArmA1 we were told it would be out in the end of 2005, and we didn't see it till the end of 2006, and the game wasn't actually playable till mid 2007. So even tho they are saying 2009 right now... take it with a grain of salt untill you have hte game in your hand.

Actually, not to say anything negative about BIS or ArmA2, but thoes are all very minor additions for a NEW game. Nothing in your list there makes BIS any sort of supream developer, or "the best team in all the world". In fact, ArmA2 is likely going to go down as a "been there, done that" game in the eyes of most critics and reviews. Thats not to say its not going to be a great game, or anything... just that its likely not going to be any major leap. COD4 for example, was an amazing game, but there was very little new in it when compared to COD1. As for the new screens and such, they look good... about the same as the last crop of screenshots/info. Still nothing seriouslly new, or amazing. My opinion remains the same, ArmA2 looks like its going to be decent, perhaps even really good. But its probly not going to hit with the shock and awe that OFP did...

I would agree with Kronzky for the most part, and have also spent the majority of the weekend and today (hurray for snow) playing the game. It truely is one of the best FPS games Ive ever seen, and the African setting is a welcome change. My only real complaints are actually with the AI. If your sneaking into a base and one guy sees you, everyone in the camp has a tendancy to open up on you all at once. While thats not bad, its the fact that some of these people might not have any line of sight and try shooting you throug buildings, trees, or even multiple buildings. Its really annoying if your trying to play the game stealthy... even with the stealth upgrade 9 out of 10 times stealth will not go over well. The other big complaint is the lack of a couple features such as needs driven scheduals... the devs said at E3 that NPC's will need to sleed and such, yet no matter what time I go into bases and camps everyones standing right where they are durring the day. There appears to be no schedual at all. Also played up, was the ability to wound enemies with sniper rifles and then watch till their buddy comes to help them... yet its almost impossible to actually wound someone and then when you do all their buddies are too busy shooting you from rediculus ranges with AK's to go and help them. Not sure if its impossible to replicate the video the devs released or not... but its sure as hell hard to. Of course thoes couple things don't really take much away from how good the game itself is. If you like fairly wide open and free roaming FPS's this is def a game I would recommend.

While I totally agree that playing ArmA with the right group of people can make the game a lot fun... it still dosn't have anything to do with how good the game itself actually is. ANY game is made better by playing with a good group of people, but its not the game itself thats giving you that experience, its the people your playing with. If the game is not a solid, limited bug experience right out of the box, then its not a good game to your average gamer. Addons are great as well, but have nothing to do with how good a game actually is. Im sure OFP2 will have more then its fair share of great addons as well... so the two games are likely going to be even on that one.

Baphomet, as someone whos been folloing Game2/ArmA2 adamently ever since the E3 2005 announcements this is basiclly whats happened... E3 2005 - Lots of great news about "Game2", with Marek Spanel being quoted in several articles saying thing such as "We don't want to make a game thats a clone", and then goes on to talk about how they have wanted to do a dynamic game for so long, and thats where they really want to go with Game2. From all that I read, I got a very serious impression that a fully dynamic game was really what the devs wanted to do more then anything else. Marek can also be quoted as promoting other intresting features that we now know where never close enough to being added to the game for him to do so... such as dynamic destruction. Which he clearly talks about as tho its a fully developed feature thats ready to go as is... not the basic prototype with several MAJOR issues that they now claim it was. Then after that burst of information...nothing. Absolutly nothing new about Game2 was released after that until the press release announceing ArmA2 in August of last year. Shortly after that is when we learned that essentially everything that made Game2 attractive had been removed. Is it the same game? YES. ArmA2 IS GAME2, as the ArmA2 website said when it first came up. Its just very light feature wise compared to what it was a few years ago. But now the devs claim that they don't want to do a dynamic campaign, they actually want to tell a story, and for what ever reason can't do it with a campaign thats dynamic... obviouslly Marek Spanel had a serious change of heart from what his thinking was durring E3 2005. We will likely never know the REAL reason behind their change of heart, and it really dosn't matter. It is what it is. And while I am sticking around for ArmA2, and very mcuh intend to buy it... Im totally with you Baphomet. I agree that the original Game2 concept had potential, and think it was perhaps the most inovative game idea Ive heard in a very long time. But now, ArmA2 is likely going to end up like so many games now adays... a so-so selling game that most people will not remember 3 years from now, much like ArmA1 was.

Great interview guys, and of course thanks to Ivan for his time. My only complain was the choice of which of my two questions was asked. Im not really sure why you guys chose to ask the question about building destruction, when that had been covered at least twice if not three times prior... and not ask the question that had to do with interior lighting, a question I have yet to see the devs be asked at all (Which is actually the one Praelium helped add on to btw). Other then that tho, the interview was very good.

Theres a big diffrence between photoshoping a screenshot, and spending time to make a good looking screenshot with in game animations, that will not be replicated in normal gameplay. Hopefully thats not what these are... but untill we see a good video of the Micro AI in action, it will be impossible to tell.

There are of course a ton of possible questions... but I'll just list a couple Id like to have asked. Q1: Is there any chance we might see lights inside the houses that can be enterd, or vehicle cargo spaces to help improve the night time environment? Q2: Since the Building Destruction blog in November 2007, there hasn't really been much, if anything said or shown about it. Are the current plans for destruction still the same as stated in the blog, and if not what are they? EDIT: Good call Praelium, question edited

At this point im confident to say that Arma 2 is a sure buy and OPF2 is a maybe, CM have yet to show us a game. That could be because BIS has just been makeing minor additions to the same game now for 7 years, so they will always have something playable to show ... but CM is building a whole new game basiclly from scratch. So 6-8 months from release (if the q1 2009 release dates stay true) its no real supprise CM dosn't have a ton to show. That last 6 months of a new games development is when it all comes together, and its likely we'll start to see more from it in the next few months. Then and only then, when we see OFP2 up and running at full potential, will anyone be able to form a full opinion as to which is better... any opinion formed before that, at least about the look of the game, is simply bias and unsupported by facts. So my original statement is true... without seeing Codemasters game developed to the same point as ArmA2, its impossible to tell which one will be better. Tho I will say this... Codemasters seems to be adding a lot of features the community has been asking for from BIS over the last few years. It seems they might have listened to the community post Flashpoint alot better then BIS has. This is likely because they know doing that will help sell the game... or perhaps they actually care what the community says. Where BIS clearly just does what THEY want, and don't seem to put as much stock into the many, many good community suggestions that have been thrown around since Flashpoint. Thats going to be a huge selling point to the countless OFP and ArmA1 fans who are getting kinda tierd of playing the same game for 7 years now. So the potential is there for OFP2 to absolutly crush ArmA2... but since ArmA2 is build on top of an existing platform, it might well be a better looking, better running game. Right now its a toss up... only time will tell who will win.

Thats very far from the truth... or at least I should say very likely far from the truth. For the 100th time... ArmA1 was simply a small go between for what was suppose to be the true OFP sequal which is now known as ArmA2. If ArmA1 had tanked, then I doubt they would have scrapped three to four years of work done on ArmA2/Game2 at the time. They would likely have just accelerated plans to get ArmA2/Game2 out the door. For what ever reason large parts of the community seem to have forgetten or ignored the fact that ArmA1 was an after thought, started years after Game2/ArmA2 development had already begun. I guess its a bit confuseing that it was started later and released first... but still, thats what it was.

At this point, its impossible to tell anything. There has been very little released about OFP2 and even less actually shown. And this is a kinda bad place to ask this question. You are posting it on a BIS board to support ArmA2. So most of the people here are fans of the ArmA series, loyal to BIS, and not huge Codemasters fans. Thus any awnsers you get here are subject to bias. Better to go post this question an a neutral board somewhere, that has nothing specific to do with either ArmA2 or OFP2.