stakex

Thats just pre-staged destruction which is very similar, if not exactly, what the dev blog essentialy says they are going to do for ArmA2, and I believe the VBS2 VTK now has similar destruction possible. Its not really anything special, as it has already been done in games before... Battlefield: Bad Company for example. And going even furthur back, Soldner had a similar, tho not as good, system and that was several years ago. Commando84, BF:BC does not have anything close to dynamic destruction. It has pre-staged destruction that has absolutly no dynamic value to it at all. I agree it likely was a real pain in the ass for the DC team to model every destroyed part of every building... but a true DD system would perhaps be easier to do (tech limitations aside) as you would not have to model the destruction, only make it possible for it to happen.

Because Micro-AI, Macro-Command, VTOL, carrying wounded people, talking to anyone on the battlefield and a better bullet penetration model has absolutely nothing to do with better gameplay. Ok yes, better AI (if it is actually better, as this still remains to be seen) was actually the number 1 thing everyone wanted... so forgive me for that one. And yes, that better AI will improve gameplay allot, but the rest of thoes features you mentioned are very minor, and are not MAJOR changes to the gameplay. Battlefield clearence was done for VBS2 and likely was just ported to ArmA2 to BIS likely spent very little dev time on it, bullet penetrastion was done in ArmA1, and the conversation system might be allot of fun... but if its not hardcoded into the system, and is just in the campaign, its all but useless aside from said campaign. But still... aside from the AI, thoes are all minor additions in terms of gameplay. None of the outdated game system in ArmA1 are being overhauled, and large portions of ArmA2 are likely going to stay outdated. Its kinda sad seeing people praiseing BIS for mediocrity in this department... And Again I don't think it has much to do with BIS having a small dev team... it has more to do with their simple desier to make the game look better, instead of play better. Many small dev teams have built games from scratch in three years... BIS has simply been adding to an existing game platform for the last 4 years. So unless half of BIS's team are working on a new game now... theres no reason that major gameplay improvements couldn't have been made.

Well you know, its all a matter of gameplay vs eyecandy. BIS obviouslly is more concerned with the look of the game, then the actual gameplay factor... as most of the major improvements to the game have taken place in the graphics department. In fact, there dosn't really seem to be one MAJOR improvement to gameplay compared to ArmA. It would seem that the target for ArmA2 is the 360 community, and not the long time series fans... who aside from the BIS suckups, don't want yet another repeat performance with ArmA2. Of course with a small dev team, you can't do everything... but, if you actually care what the community thinks, you would fix/change/add the main things on their wishlist. And Idk about you, but I haven't seen anything more sought after then improved vehicle handleing/targeting/damage. Yet... there dosn't appear, and there has been no mention of, any serious improvement in this area. And hey, if the devs stoped tacking on all the latest and greatest graphical effects, then there would be plenty of hardware room to add physics and hardware draining gameplay improvements. That game dosn't have to look THAT good to be a hit, and people will buy a game that has really good gameplay as long as the graphics aren't too terrible. But again, its very clear where BIS is thinking with ArmA2.

Well first of all, the "Its a WIP" argument is fine, if BIS actually said they planned to fix what the person is complaining about, but its not done yet. I have not seen one mention of this specificly by the devs (if it has been, then thats diffrent) as being something thats going to be fixed, so theres nothing wrong with mentioning it. The OP have a very good point, and theres no reason to jump down his throte. Anyway, most of the times people say "Its WIP!", they are saying it in reference to things that are almost certainly NOT to be in the game... so it gets just as annoying to hear suck ups throw that phrase around any time someone has some feedback from the videos. So back on topic, this isn't anything improtant to be done anyway... spending time adding wildlife to shoot and such, is far more important then fixing something that had been wrong with the game for 7 years. Thats a far better way for BIS to spend that time... Yea... right.

Yeah I agree, I was hoping atleast some buildings and houses in ArmA would have some lights in them that would show through the windows at night to make the place look alive. Sahrani at night with some of it's bigger towns/cities looks totally dead! Don't most people turn their lights off when they go to sleep  People don't always go to sleep the second its dark out... ever see a real life town at night? Its full of light, and should look somewhat lively. At least untill late night hours, and providing you don't live in the absolute middle of nowhere. Now go look at any ArmA1 town, and tell me with a strait face they look anything like a real world town/city.

I suppose it might be possible... tho as far as I know, its not possible to send anything (missions or mods) to a player on the 360 from a PC version of a game. Microsoft has this thing (at least they use to) about downloading stuff to a 360 that they have no control over... Idk if missions for a game would fall under that catagory, but I wouldn't doubt it. Also, since we know they game is going to have a limited mission editor on the 360... the capability of the 360 game might be less, and missions might not be able to be on the scale of the PC version. And should that be true, that again hurts the useability of cross platform play. All this aisde, dentist guba is correct... the main issue is going to be mods.

I agree. Animated cargo doors should be a standard for all aircraft and vehicles. Also, I know I said this in a different topic a long time ago, but I would like to see a light inside the cargo. It's a nice little detail and may help during the night. Yea it would be really stupid if one or two vehicles has animated doors, and no others. Should be all or none... And I totally agree with the lighting inside vehicles. I think the overall lighting of the OFP/ArmA series has been probly its second biggest weak point, next to physics... and lighting inside vehicles would go a long way to fixing that. Good lighting in a game really helps set the atmosphere... and that has been missing from these games. Also, lights inside houses would be very welcome as well... especially with a civilian population. Would look kinda stupid with civs standing aimlessly in their dark houses every night...

The YAK-141 was cancelled 17 years ago... and you want them to use it to counter one of the newest and most advanced combat aircraft in the world? I don't think thats going to work too well.... However, Im sure there is some Russian aircraft out there that could be added into ArmA2 (thats actually in use today, and not a very old reject) that could, at least for the sake of gameplay, be made equal with the F-35.

This always gets me... I don't know about you, but I personally expect something other then minor improvements from a NEW game, especially when the developers have had SEVEN YEARS worth of feedback, and imput from the community. Expectations for ArmA1 were kinda low as the devs themselfs even said it was intended as a go between for Game2(ArmA2 now) and OFP. So the fact that it made such little improvement over OFP was not really a big deal. However, ArmA2 can't get away with that... ArmA2 isn't suppose to be the half hearted, money maker that ArmA1 was. Its suppose to be a "Lifelike combat simulation" accodring to BIS's own website... yet some aspects of the game are so far from lifelike its incredible. Not the least of which is the vehicle targeting system, which does in fact appear to the very same as it was in OFP v1.0... and thats inexcusable as it was one of OFP's weakpoints. How it could survive like it is for all these years is really quite amazing. But back on the topic of expectations for a second... Bohemia Interactive take a new step into the heart of military realism, raising the benchmark for true combat experience... Its kinda hard not to expect quite a bit, when BIS pats itself on the back with statements like that as well as "Ultimate Military Simulator". Its fine to make statements like that about your games... as long as you back it up. I hate to say it, I really do... but I think Codemasters is going to dominate this round. Hopefully Im wrong in the end tho....

The big issue with this is that its likely going to be impossible to get missions built in the PC version, onto a 360. And since a good majority of online ArmA games seem to use custom missions... that would hinder PC/Console players playing on the same servers. Not to mention you wouldn't be able to use mods in missions if you wanted console gamers to play with you, as its highly unlikely consoles will have any access to mods as well. So while it might be nice to have a few more people to play with... the fact that you would have to play built in missions, and not use mods limits the useability of cross platform play.

Would def help with the immersion factor, and improve the atmospshere of the game.

Actually Game2 IS ArmA2... allot of things have just changed in between the time it was called Game2 and the time it was given an official name apparently.

Well there is no sign at all that there are going to be British forces in ArmA2, so that would likely mean no SAS. Also, the only US forces we know of are going to be the Marines, and since Delta is the army... thats a no as well. On a side note, COD4's success has absolutly nothing to do with the fact there were SAS in the game. It was simply because COD1 and COD2 were extreamly popular. The forces in the game could have been made up (or not included the SAS), and the game would have sold just as well. To think that "the main reason people played it" was because of the SAS is laughable at best.

What physics....? So far it seem the games physics will be much the same as ArmA's, which were just slightly improved from OFP. Thus there is no need to have one core handle nothing but physics... I thought a while ago they said the second core was going to be used for the AI? Could be wrong.

I have 4 words for you: Get the FUCK out. (I know this has been covered, but I was travelling and missed out all the fun) You claim to be a "veteran" of the community, but all I've seen you do is bitch moan and whine about EVERYTHING regardless of whether its presented by BIS or given to you for free by addon makers. You claim to be a veteran but have no idea who some of the KEY people from the OFP days are? (Christ, you cant even spell his name properly, and its been on the BI staff page for 2 years, and is in the credits for ArmA and QG) You claim to be a "veteran" but you sir are nothing more than a TROLL. You're lucky I dont moderate these boards, because you would have been banned as one LONG ago. I know Markus very well, and he knows more about both the engine and the military in general than you could EVER hope to know. And I'd like to see you do a similar presentation with the amount of time Markus had to prepare for it. You would be laughed off the stage. Why dont you do us all a favour and take your whiny attitude to some other community. [/Rage] You better calm down my friend, before i start to get agressive  I never heard of a Markus Kurzawa, neither from 2001 on , nor today.... I have to admit that the nickname sounds a bit like i read it before somewhere, but thats all. As you see in my join date i joined at the beginning of 2007 here, before i was around in various other (mostly german) boards. I never played the mod he was working with (I only ever played BWMod, WGL and FFUR) and i never read any credits for Arma or QG (which i beleive the majority does not too). So what? Still this presentation was a huge dissapointment for all people rather familiar with Arma/OFP Editor (I call them Veterans). Still this is my opinion. And you stupid idiot should be glad that i am no admin here, because such aggressive people like you would have been already visited pesonally by me to give them some punches in their face  Who do you call a Troll here you idiot... unbelievable... If you have further problems drop me a pm. Don't worry mr.g-c, Ive never heard of the guy either... and Ive been lurking around here since 2001-2002ish. DM, man you really need to chill out and accept the fact that not everyone knows absolutly every developer/mod maker in the community, or memorize the BIS staff page. All the mods I have followed, interviews Ive read, and time on these boards and I can't recall ever hearing his name before. I as well thought he was just some guy they drug in to do the interview, perhaps from the publisher... thats not syaing anything bad about him, just what it seemed. Things on this board are in fact getting out of hand. Seems you can't say anything negative about the game (and there is plenty) without being called a "troll" or "BIS Basher". Its that kind of fanboyism, and blind support that has allowed BIS to release one sub-par and out dated game, and now it SEEMS they are on track to do it again. Unfortunatlly for the survival of the series, the gaming world will not be so accepting...

I do. BIS bashing is common sense since the ArmA release. Even if there is something that has been improved or introduced someone will come up and complain about it, and be it just for the heck of it. That's the community nowadays, sad but true. Â Or perhaps some people are just not happy with the product and want to give their feedback? You might be happy with BIS releaseing mods for OFP and calling them new games several years after OFP actually came out... but that dosn't mean everyones going to like it. People tend to expect game engines to make big improvements (graphics don't count) over a span of seven years constant development... Its not BIS bashing, just expressing displeasement with the lack of development. Lets also not forget, BIS brings allot of this on themselfs... Not to keep bringing it up, but BIS did promis allot of great things for this game, and built expectations to a very high level. Then for two years said absolutly nothing about it, and are only now three years later they are finally telling everyone that all the cool stuff that was promoteing and all they things they hyped, have been scraped, and replaced with more or less a clone version of ArmA, which was a clone of OFP. And quoteing Marek Spanel for the August 2005 PCGamer article..... "We don't want to make a game that's a clone. We have a vision for a game we want to do, that is diffrent..." But yet, here we are. So you can call it BIS bashing all you want... but they have brought allot of grief on themselfs. At the very least they could have done what most developers do, and kept teh community in the loop as they made development decisions to scrap features they had spent time hyping. And your "Why don't YOU do it" comment was laughable. Why the hell say it to me? Im not the "game developer" that went out and hyped the whole dynamic campaign (three of them actually). Im not the one who made all these claims and hyped all these features that no longer are in ArmA2. And any retard can read the original magazine articles and the new ArmA2 info and clearly see almost everything from thoes old articles has been confirmed as NOT being in the game now. So no, I don't know more then you about the features of the game... I just actually pay attention to what I read, and can add 2 + 2.

Ok, so its official... BIS has given up on every single thing that made Game2 sound so great. To say they removed the dynamic campagin because they wanted to tell a story is the funniest thing I have ever heard as you can still tell a story mixed in with dynamic missions... or, just do both. But lets not forget, ArmA2 was suppose to be about NEW gameplay. Not the old story mode of past games. In the last 3 years BIS has abandon an amazing idea for a game, and decided to just tack on some minor improvements to ArmA1, build a new map, new story, and call it a day. If that was the original plan (and what was originaly presented to the community), then fine, no complaints... BUT remember the devs own words a couple years ago?? This was suppose to be a "new" game, with totally diffrent gameplay, built with next gen technology... what the hell happened since then??? ArmA2 is NOT next gen, there is little to no new technology in use (other then eye candy), almost no community suggestions have been used, and ArmA2's gameplay seems exactlly the same as OFP's with some conversation system tacked on. ArmA1 was suppose to be the game that used the old technology and gameplay... NOT ArmA2. Its not like the original info about Game2/ArmA2 recieved bad press by the community or anything.... in fact, everyone loved it. Even people who were not OFP fans loved the ideas behind the game... so what would posses a developer to drop thoes ideas, and do exactly what they said they didn't want to do at the time, and thats stick with the old gameplay? Lazyness? Lack of desier? Streamlineing for the console version? Who knows... but something sure as hell happened.

Yea I saw that too... he was trying to hide behind the sign post (if were talking about the same thing). I assume thats something the devs will have fixed before launch. If not, man I'll be so pissed if my teamates keep dieing because they are trying to hide behind a damn sign post. Also, the AI still seem far too twitchy IMO, at least the one guy did right after the post hiding incident. He ran a zig zag before he kneeld down, and then twitched around on his knees when he turned. Seems like their path finding might still be a little flunky. Tho thats not really a huge issue I guess... they can twich as long as they can fight.

arma2.com has been updated twice in the last year if I recall correctly, so its kinda funny to list it as a site that reports ArmA2 news. AFAIK there is no ArmA2 news only site up yet... there really hasn't been a landslide of news in recent months to warrent a site specificly for it. Your gonna have to just find the news mixed in with all the other ArmA stuff on the fansites. Or you could just read the ArmA2 Press Coverage thread right below yours... thats where I go for my info.

To be fair to that first point there, ArmA1 was never ment to be a successor to OFP, but mearly an in-between game, or OFP 1.5 as many have said. "Game 2" and now ArmA2 was always intended to be the true sequal to OFP... On the second point... ArmA2 is going to be bellow average on the tech standpoint, no matter what they do in the next few months. Perhaps not graphicly, but when it comes to the rest of the engine... it really hasn't advanced very far from OFP if you think about it, and thats really a bad thing with as quick as technology advances now adays. Thats not to say you can't have a great game with an outdated engine... but thats just what it is, outdated. aside from the phyics engine, in watch part of the engine is outdated? just because they dont use DX10? It has nothing to do with useing DX10... its the simple fact the engine has had allot of the same issues since OFP, and not all that many have been fixed since then. Physics of course is the main one, which is a huge part of any game. And Im not talking about "ragdoll" or any crap like that... but more important things like vehicle physics. See that bike in the new videos? Looks an awful lot like the half hearted motorcycle from OFP, which was even bad by standards back then. It might be fixed by release or course, but I just get the sence better physics don't intrest BIS all that much, which is sad. Good physics can really make a game... Its not just the physics of course... but thats the main part of it. Its just, seven years since OFP first came out... and the game engine hasn't really improved all that much. It might be too early to get into this... maybe ArmA2 will in fact be a huge leap forward. Perhaps the AI will be truely amazing. Only time will tell, but as it is right this second, from what we have seen, ArmA2 is looking to be a fairly small step forward, at least on the technical side of the game. The graphics side is another thing of course. The graphics side of the engine is where ArmA2 SEEMS to has made most of its progress...

To be fair to that first point there, ArmA1 was never ment to be a successor to OFP, but mearly an in-between game, or OFP 1.5 as many have said. "Game 2" and now ArmA2 was always intended to be the true sequal to OFP... On the second point... ArmA2 is going to be bellow average on the tech standpoint, no matter what they do in the next few months. Perhaps not graphicly, but when it comes to the rest of the engine... it really hasn't advanced very far from OFP if you think about it, and thats really a bad thing with as quick as technology advances now adays. Thats not to say you can't have a great game with an outdated engine... but thats just what it is, outdated.

Yap -.- but it's the smallest problem... I hope it was a really old version After the awesome Kit & Screens.. To much typical OFP/ArmA problems. I agree... the screenshots and press kit looked great. This video presentation however, was not so spectacular, and many of the old OFP problems do in fact appear to still be quite visable. Also, the one thing missing from the presentation I would have liked to see was the new building destruction system... it would be kinda nice to see how thats shapeing up.

Or, perhaps... technology just simply advanced as it does in between games (or at least should)? Yea, ArmA1 was just a lead up to ArmA2... but its quite rare for a developer to do things like that. Your example is wrong however as BF2 was not a "practice" game. The next game in the series simply took advantage of move advanced technology that was available. Anyway, the new screenshots look really good... my only small complaint is the vehicle textures. I really don't think the base models should be covered in mud like the Hummvee is. Especially if the US soldiers had just landed in the battlefield. That might be a bit picky I know... but still.

You could take some of the other, earlier ArmA2 shots and compare it to that OFP2 one and it wouldn't look all that much better. Don't forget... the two games are going to come out around about the same time. But, OFP2 has a much much larger dev team. That means, OFP2 has the chance to improve allot more then ArmA2 does. Besides, the gameplay footage that has come out shows ground enviromnets that look every bit as good as ArmA2's, if not better. I haven't really looked into OFP2 too much... but today i watched gamespots new interviews on it, and the E3 presentation. To me, it seems Codemasters listened to the players concerns allot more then BIS has actually. The effects in the game seem far more advanced then we are going to see in ArmA2, the animations are far superior (including vehicle mounting animations), and a load of other improvements BIS has failed to impliment. Im really looking forward to ArmA2... but I fear that OFP2 is going to be a much better game in the end, and be more along the lines of what ArmA2 SHOULD have been.

Some really nice info inside the press kit... Perhaps I missed this somewhere else, but this is one of the things that was new and stood out to me. Not only does ammunition type influence the power of a round, but also the number and colour of tracers, which were also designed according to real-life specifications. I must say I am a stickler for detail sometimes, and that made me kinda happy to hear there is diffrent ammo types and such. Thats news to me anyway.