stakex

Don't make the mistake of expecting something like this in ArmA2 because some one sorta kinda made a mod for it in ArmA... Its unlikely we will see this in ArmA2, but it really should be included... the buildings in ArmA are on level with OFP quality, and are in serious need of an upgrade, and actual windows would really help.

Im quite possibly one of the biggest advocates for ArmA2 needing allot of improvements and additions over ArmA/OFP to make it what it was originally promised.... but I voted no in this case. This is something that can be easily modded in and does not NEED to be hard coded into the game engine. I would rather see the devs spend time adding and fixing things that modders can't deal with such as the physics engine. Not to say I wouldn't mind fast ropeing being included as a default feature of the game, its just not a total "must".

This is EXACTLLY the problem with ArmA and likely to be the problem with ArmA2. Since OFP the graphics of the engine have improved amazingly... yet the game play part of the engine have seen only minor chages, and in reality when it comes to ArmA we are simply playing a graphicly modded OFP. Which is fine, since thats all ArmA1 was suppose to be. But ArmA2 was suppose to be the true OFP sequal, and not just a beefed up version of the original game (that was ArmAs job). And right now, it is looking more and more like ArmA2 is going to simply be a modded ArmA1. Obviouslly that could be wrong, and I hope so... but apparent lack of any major engine improvements aside from graphics and AI is not looking good. As the topic brings to attention the weapon handling is exactlly as it was in OFP... and it wasn't so great in OFP that it shouldn't have been touched. In fact, there are so many things missing and messed up with the weapon system, it really should have been one of the main priorities to be fixed... yet there seems to have been very little attention paid to this area. This is just the tip of the ice burg really, and is far from the only area that has been in desparate need of attention since OFP.... the physcis engine is very old and needs to be replaced, yet we have heard its not going to be changed at all really. The vehicle destruction system is terrible and should be replaced... and while it was originaly stated vehicles will have dynamic destruction its likely this is no longer the case (tho nothing official yet). Character movements are overly choppy and make moveing in tight areas very difficult, yet there seems to be no fix for this at least not in the build in the latest videos. These are just a couple areas the game engine has not improved since OFP, and really needs to if there is a future for the series...

You are absolutely right on this one.... Suma or someone else had only need to post one sentence like: "No, what you see on those videos doesn't reflect the current status of the game" Period... all would be pleased..... Â You know tho, it is also possible, however unlikely that what we saw in the videos IS in fact represenative of the current status of the game and even possibly the final state.... and thats why the devs haven't said anything. Of course thats highly unlikely, and its impossible to tell anything from the communication (or lack there of) from BIS since the devs tend not to spend a whole lot of time on the boards no matter what the situation is (not really a bad thing, Id rather them working on the game). Im just saying tho, its never good to assume anything, especially when it comes to ArmA2 (Game2)... or you might end up very dissapointed in the end.

Stop talking - or i get wet pants! Â Â No, seriously that also the kind of animations and detail i really would like to see..... Regards, Christian It would be quite amazing to see that level of detail in ArmA2, along with many other animation fixes... but unfortunatly Ive learned not to hold my breath when it comes to things like this.

I know that exactlly my problem with all the "new" ArmA2 info and screens... the original game2 shots and info from 2005 were amazing, while the new stuff is very dissapointing in comparison. And while some in the community will be satisfied with a mediocer game thats just a slight improvement over ArmA1 with a new campaign, new map, and some new units (basiclly and ArmA mod).... most people will be very dissapointed and not buy it. Now Im not saying thats what the final product of ArmA2 is going to be, but the news and new media of "ArmA2" has been nothing but steps back from what we were originally expecting in "Game2". As Ive said in the past, only time will tell just how much the devs care to make ArmA2 really good... or if they just throw together an ArmA mod and pass it off as a new game.

Uhh better be careful.... Or you will get written down to the list of the so called "usual complainers" or "bi-basher's", just like myself as i had written similar posts. But according to the latest information we have avaibale, you are right... this is what makes me feel a little bit sad. lol development companies need a certain level of complaining and bashing otherwise they turn into companies like Electronic Arts. @ dmitri Would you rather we see nothing but pre-rendred screenshots and such only to have the game come out look nothing like the released media? I will actually praise BIS for not hideing what the game looks like before its ready to be released... at least with videos like this we can give feedback and let the devs know what we think before the game comes out.

I agree with the negative feedback on these videos and hope that they are in fact old and lacking most of the new features. Because if this is what we can expect from ArmA2, then its not going to be worth buying. Ive said it before, and I'll say it again... a modded version of ArmA1 will sell like a lead ballon. And thats all we see in these videos... no major changes, same old models, and no sign of "Game 2" or the "next gen PC game" we have been promised. Want a good laugh? Read one of the old "Game2" articles for a couple years ago... almost every thing that made "Game2" sound great has been removed, and theres no sign that ArmA2 is going to live up to the innitial hype caused when "Game2" was first announced. Of course it is very true ArmA1 didn't take its final form until shortly before release, and the same could well be true for ArmA2. The new AI might not be fully implimented, effects and models might be place holders, and who know what else might be in development and not added to the game in these videos. But if thats not that case......... well, who knows then.

The reason is your Mom probably not being as rich as the marines. No offense man. It's just that your post is just as funny/constructive as mine imho. Actually his post is much more constructive... the fact that it can be done in the game engine puts to bed any argument about needing "too much resource" or antyhing like that. If it can be done in VBS2, it can be done in ArmA2. Now its just a matter if BIS wants to include DT as a feature in the game or not... that is simply all thats keep it out of the game, end of story. And for this fact Sgt_Hawkins post is the funny/unconstructive post.....

In ArmA there were three areas where lighting was really lacking IMO... The first was car headlights. When your outside the car at night (especially in front of it) the lighting is really good. But when your driving the lighting is terrible. Its really blocky, and its really hard to use the lights from your car to drive at times... it needs to be much smoother and the lighting itself needs to be more realistic. This is one area that has needed to be fixed since OFP, and would be nice to see a fix for it in ArmA2. Next is environmental lighting, such as lighting in towns and cities. This area needs drastic improvement. First of all the cities need to be brighter at night. They are plain and simply too dark... in that reguard OFP's city lighting was at times much better. Also, there needs to be more types of light sources, and not just a handful of light posts... cities should feel alive at night, and currently in ArmA, its like a dimmly light ghost town. Things like porch lights, walk way lights, spot lights, and other types of outdoor and decrative lighting should be used in the cities to give them a more "real" feeling. Lastly, sorta related the the last issue is in-building lighting. The one huge problem I have always had with OFP/ArmA is that buildings have no self lighting at all. Every building that can be entered should have lights inside so buildings aren't pitch black at night. This goes towards cities looking dead at night... becuase even if a city is light up like Vagas, if the buildings are all dark it will still feel dead. It would even be cool is there were light switches and such in the buildings, but thats a diffrent topic all together. Lighting can make or break a game... and while ArmA's lighting is at times amazing, it really lacks in these areas. Its my hope that ArmA2 see at least some of these improvements.

Every first or third person game I've ever played* has clipping issues of some sort or another, including "next gen" Xbox 360 games..... *if anyone has played a game where nothing at all clips into anything else then let me know but I'd be surprised Thats is true to a point... all games do in fact have clipping to a certain degree, and I was never suggesting ArmA2 should be clipping free. But I sure hope your not trying to say the level of clipping we saw in ArmA is on level with what we see in most modern day games. Becuase that couldn't be farther from the truth, and would be nothing short of spin... ArmA had ALOT more then its fair share of clipping and collision detection problems. In fact, one could argue ArmA's clipping when any moving objects touch together is absolutly abysmal, and some of the worst ever seen in a modern day shooter... So making any attempt to compare it to any other "next gen" games in terms of clipping/collion detection is laughable at best. Hopefully the same will not be true for ArmA2. Ti0n3r hit the nail on the head when it comes to clipping... things such as holding weapons should be clipping free, and are on most high quality games. The way I see it, thats something in the players face, all the time... in terms of presentation, its a smart thing to fix IMO. And in all fairness, collision detection/clipping in ArmA was a major leap forward over OFP, and while still far short of being considered good (OFP probly had the worst CD ever in a FPS)... its my hope ArmA2 will make another big leap on the issue, as well as the major clipping problems of ArmA. Only time will tell.

That's a bit drastic. In other FPS for quite a few years they have not even enabled you to see your own body in first person. Your still just a floating pair of arms with a gun. Thats not a graphical issue, or engine flaw tho... thats just simply how most FPS's are intentionally designed. Clipping is an actual problem/glitch/bug with the graphics in the game, as where not being able to see your body is just a design choice... so thats really not a good comparison.

Its quite possible... but BIS has had clipping issues for years now starting with OFP, and then ArmA. So its not far fetched to assume its soemthing they don't plan to fix.

I very much agree with the first line of your post... a good percentage of the community goes above and beyond to defends OFP/ArmA/ArmA2's blatent flaws and issues. Tho I wouldn't go as far to say BIS isn't as talented as the Crytek team... its more so the budget issue I would think, and the fact that the BIS team is probly alot smaller. And while I haven't seen anything confirming the things you mentioned for OpF:DR, you have a very good point here. Not so much about that game specificlly, but if more large scale military sim games similar to ArmA/ArmA2 start to come out (not unlikely since the large scale, open world game has grown in popularity the last couple years).... BIS will be in serious trouble as far as selling copies of ArmA2 to gamers that are not die hard fans. Most high profile modern day games have physics engines, better graphics, and play far smoother then OFP/ArmA2 could ever dream of... with far less bugs, and game issues. As my other post said... ArmA2 has to be a major improvement over ArmA otherwise BIS might be waving the white flag in game development. Becuase if ArmA2 is a patched version of ArmA.... it will be dead in the water.

I won't point to any one feature that ArmA2 needs as most have been beat to death by now.... but ArmA2 needs to be a marked improvements over ArmA. ArmA2 (originally Game2 and NEXT GEN PC game), is suppose to be a brand new game after all and minor changes and improvements over ArmA are not going to cut it if the game is going to be popular and successful. For example, ArmA's main draw back aside from the fact it was released six months early, was the fact it improved very little over OFP. Its graphics were better, and some funamental engine problems were fixed... but at the end of the day ArmA was really not much more then a modded version of a 6 year old game. And if BIS releases a modded version of ArmA2 without some decent content additions (not includeing new units), and some major engine fixes/changes.... then ArmA2 will not sell. Its that simple.

It would be nice if body armor was something that could be picked up from an "equipment box" or added to a character in the editor and then just simply have a real world effect depending on the type of armor it is.

Ive never played Red Faction so I can't say how good or bad its destruction was... but you do have to remember Red Faction is 7 years old. PC's have come along way since then. So something that could only be done in a small linear environment back then, could very well be possible nowadays.

I fully grasp "the concept of full destructable environments", but I also fully grasp the complete impossibility of such a thing happening anytime soon, let alone in an MP game, due to the absurd amount of developmental resources that would be required to even come close to attaining that goal. If you think something like Crysis is even remotely close to said goal, perhaps your perspective is colored by that. lol Who ever said anything about Crysis even being close? Crysis does in fact have dynamic destruction, but its very primitive and far from the overall goal of "100% dynamic destruction". However, if the graphics were toned down to the level of say Far Cry, which would still be pretty good, its likely they would have had alot more computer resource to spend on destruction. But they chose graphics over gameplay as almost all developers do. Its not so much the developer resource... developing a DD system really isn't a mammoth task. Useing an off the shelf physics engine it can probly be done fairly easy actually. The problem is it requiers a fairly high amount of CPU resource... and with modern day games more concerned about pushing the graphics as high as possible, there isn't much computer resource left for DD. Theres not a whole lot that can be done by throwing dev time at that issue, other then lowering the graphics. And the same is true for MP... it has nothing to do with amount of dev time, and everything to do with limits caused by internet/network speeds. Untill faster internet comes along, DD will not really be realistic for MP. No "adsurd amount of development resource" is going to change that.

I don't really see how one could doubt that a game with total dynamic destruction would be much diffrent in terms of gameplay then the system we are going to see in ArmA2. Its really more of a fact that it would be totally diffrent, then an opinion. I don't think you quite grasp the concept of fully destuctable environments that are 100% dynamic... And the time statement is totally irrelevant to this conversation since we all know there is not going to be DD in ArmA2. Not becuae of time or anything like that... but becuase the devs abandon their already developed DD system a long time ago in favor of the new ArmA2 system. This is just talk comapring the two systems. Thats true... but there we are talking about going from pretty much no destuction to some form of destruction. So its going to be a massive leap... and again, it really depends on how good the ArmA2 system is. But I still believe the leap from static destuction to dynamic would be just as big.

The same effect can be achieved doing what they are doing now - any given wall may have several different pieces that can be blown out, which allows for the tactics you cited. The difference between what they're doing, and "full dynamic destruction", is very small in terms of gameplay, and MASSIVE in terms of developmental resources, system resources, and online complications. The path BIS is taking on this particular topic is the best one to take, easily. Thats really a bold statement since we actually haven't seen the new system in action. All we have seen in a brief prototype video showing what the general idea will be... that is (hopefully) not represenative of the system we will actually see in the game. Becuase if that video IS exactlly what the system will be, your statements will probly be wrong for most cases. For all we know, the new system might not turn out to be anywhere near as good as alot of people think/hope... we really can't tell untill there is a video of the current system in action other then the prototype video. In terms of gameplay, a fully dynamic destruction system (original Game2) and a static destruction animation system (ArmA2) is actually a lot bigger then you think. It would be totally diffrent playing in a 100% destructable environment, as opposed to an environment where the destruction is repedative animations, and static. It would be like playing two totally diffrent games.

Winter would be nice, but for the reasons stated by Dslyecxi, it would be better suited for an expansion or something along thoes lines.

I really think people are stuck on the "too much computer power" argument. Do not forget, dual core processors are going to be a min requierment... so a pretty powerfull PC is going to be needed for ArmA2. It seems with major feature that get suggested everyone runs to the "too much PC useage" awnser... without actually thinking about it. Dynamic Destruction probly would use too much PC power right now, becuase every building would have had hundreds if not thousands of individual physics objects. But DT would requier a fraction of the resourse a good DD system would need, especially since its not really useing any sort of constant physics calculations. And if such features are not possible becuase of PC useage (which I highly, highly doubt, especially becuase of what W0lle said), then its time to think about either smaller maps or a new game engine after ArmA2 thats built from the ground up with "next gen" features in mind.

Well small things make good games great... this is one of thoes "small" things that really should be fixed in a "Next Gen" game.

Well this is a feature that could very easily be turned off for MP, or be optional to use depending on the size of the game. Even still, not that much deformation will be happening at any given time (aside from a carpet bombing or something). So for most normal games I couldn't imagine it killing an online game.

...and they've already said that it's one of the main reasons why they've given up the DD. Besides, deforming the surface in built up areas would be much more complex than in the open, and I think you're confusing terrain deformation with DD when it comes to CQB. Personally I still don't buy that the AI was one of the main reasons to giving up on DD. I think the only really valid excuse they gave was that inablitly to addapt their system to a massive environment, and the MP angle. Either way tho, terrain deformation would likely be a totally diffrent situation all together. It should be a whole lot simpler for the AI to recognize. Lets face it, the AI in ArmA dosn't take cover anyway.... so if thats not fixed in ArmA2, it really won't matter if AI use the deformed terrain, becuase they wouldn't use it anyway. (I do believe they have said AI will take and search for cover cover, but Im not expecting great things in that area) If BIS are the tallented development team everyone thinks they are... I would think that getting AI to see the deformed terrain should be one of the easy parts of such a system.