Hekezu

aLmAnZo's initial post is really well put. I haven't played AO's campaign through yet (I'm more hooked to multiplayer - partially because of the reasons said below), but still OFP's and it's expansions have the best campaigns. Only EW mini campaign comes close to it. The most important things in a campaign are the characters - how they evolve or react. Voice acting should be taken seriously. The acting didn't sound that bad but the lines (and maybe lack of directing?) made the characters sound really cheesy. This thread actually inspires me to sketch out some kind of a campaign - initially in my head. Maybe if I had more time I could get back into mission making "business". But first I must finish AO. :)

Ok, so here's my story. I bought a new PC this fall and I decided to move to Vista 64bit as my OS. At first I suffered some stability issues, but after upgrading my drivers on a rapid pace, I managed to get my Vista stable. Most of the games worked fine, but ArmA was suffering from mysterious random crashes. On top of that I have to run Windows with 3 GB of RAM, because of the full screen / black screen problem. Sometimes I could play 90 minutes without a crash, and sometimes I couldn't play 10 minutes without a crash. I had to begin my investigation. I managed to track down the cause of errors in the arma.rpt. It said dinput8.dll in Window's System32 folder was causing the trouble. I renamed the file in System32 and in SysWOW64 but then ArmA refused to start. Then I copied the dinput8.dll to ArmA's base folder and behold, I could play two over two hour sessions of Warfare without crashes. So, if anyone of you are suffering from random crashes, check out the arma.rpt and search for dinput8.dll. If it's there, you could try the trick I did. I'm running arma in -maxmem=512 switch at 1920x1200, with all settings high. No other problems, except the black screen / memory error, which is kind of sad, because one of the reasons I bought 64bit Vista was the ability use full 4GB of RAM. Â

Vanilla OFP's weapons are way too accurate compared to America's Army. I think AA has more "realistic" feel to the guns than vanilla OFP. This will be fixed according to this interview: Simulated recoil system: No two guns are the same, so firing them shouldn't feel the same; Armed Assault features fully simulated weapon recoil. America's Army has mission objectives but on most maps the rounds (usually 5 to 10 mins) end because a team has eliminated the other team, not because the objectives have been completed. Of course OFP has DM, TDM and such gameplay modes but it has a lot more (basically unlimited modes). That is why I love OFP, you can have so much variety in one game that you keep on playing it for 5 years. I hope ArmA will improve the CQB because that is the real downside of OFP. Improved collision system with buildings is already a big plus compared to OFP and hopefully the AI can perform better in CQB. Plus the leaning feature will be added that I really missed.

We could have a better debate when Armed Assault and America's Army 3.0 have been released. America's Army 3.0 uses Unreal engine 3 and I bet it'll have larger maps than current version of America's Army. Also graphics and vehicle physics and overall physics will be great. ArmA on the other hand will offer 400kmË› enviroment with 100+ player multiplaying experience with almost any kind of missions (from CTI and Co-op to America's Army kind of objective based missions). So instead of trying to make this a versus situation I encourage everyone to buy ArmA and to download AA, it is free you know. America's Army has solid CQB while ArmA (if it is like OFP) will offer better overall massive warzone experience.

But it takes more time to crack SF than most of the other protection systems. SF is good for this kind of software because ArmA isn't for public use, yet.

I'm sorry to say that it is not enough. The shadows still need the approval of EU and to pass the EU directives of in-game shadows.

Old shots!? The impression could be x10 better if they had showed the new screenshots. I mean almost everyone is after graphics these days, but ofcourse the fans of OFP don't care that much about 'em. They are after some damn large scale gameplay and that is what matters. Good graphics are the icing on the cake, at least for me. Maybe they'll do another article in the near future with the newest shots.

Wooow. That is amazing! Fully dynamic destruction system. Even the colors of the world wash out.

That is so, I've been there and I wrote the text you're talking about. Well, if they don't get a publisher, we'll maybe never see ArmA... Unless we... raid the BIS headquarters!

That sounds awesome! Vietnam mods will look so great in Arma. Yes. Imagine dense jungle vegetation swaying calmly in the breeze while casting shadows on marines. Imagine insects buzzing all around them just like the hueys do on the horizon.

Yes, and Workshop project is a good example of it. Seems like Codemasters is still sponsoring the event. Hmmm...

Quick, flee! I can hear the moderators coming!

How about you chill out or return to your so called army. Your military status isn't anything special. I think a lot of users here have some kind of military experience. If the game is so bad, why are you here? No one forces you to buy it. If you are here to tell the game sucks, be more specific. For example could you please elaborate why the graphics look too cartoony.

So, we should be able to just stick a small portion of our head out from a corner of a wall/building by leaning with TrackIR? Instead of either leaning completely or not leaning at all, we can move anywhere between these 2 points (Standing Straight - - - - - - - - - - - Fully Leaning)? If this is how it is going to work......omg I think only the controls that have "(ANALOG)" are analog, not just limited to "on" or "off" but can be something from between. So leaning isn't analog, yet, judging by that shot. But ofcourse it can be added later on. But then track-ir users could lean a lot better than keyboard users. You could adjust how much you lean depending on the situation. That would not only be cool but most likely useful. Hmm, another reason to get TIR, maybe?

How about "unlimited" ammount of sides. Maybe add-on makers can create their own side classes. Ofcourse then the mission maker has to think twice who is friendly to whom.

Oooooh yeees! But the only bad thing is that the release date is now "officially" pushed to Q3 by BIS. Ofcourse the publisher can delay the game even more. I don't mind the wait as long as BIS can deliver what it promised.

Wow, they didn't slander the graphics!? This can't be... Nothing special but the article made me think that to a BF2 player CTI will be the most interesting mode. Basically it is BF2 gameplay minus the town respawn (atleast now, we don't know if BIS will add it) plus a lot more like RTS elements and larger areas. In BF2 you capture and hold towns just to have the most towns or to make your enemy run out of manpower. In CTI you capture towns for income and you use income to get better equipment in order to destroy the enemy. There is also the option that who captures all the towns wins the war but it isn't as fun IMHO. BIS's CTI should be more realistic than the current CTI versions. There shouldn't be factories (just fortifications, minefields and such). Units should be sent to predefined places from "the sea" via planes and ships. Also buying your equpment is kinda lame. There should be player classes like a sniper that respawns with his equpment if there is any left. The commander has to decide what kind of equipment he orders and what kind of men he needs. They can't just be made on the island, CTI shouldn't be like Command & Conquer but more like Ground Control.

Lazy, maybe, but if someone just gives publisher's information and not any critisism, I get the feeling that he/she isn't telling all the important facts. Maybe someone doesn't talk about how thing X is bad but instead states why Y and Z are wonderful. I think that is pretty biased, but ofcourse he/she could be just "lazy". Either way bad journalism. In this case the journalist states graphics are "worse than moderate" but also remembers to say something good: "We have to admit the latter works amazingly" (when she is talking about the new animations). So I guess the first impression is okay. But I can't wash off the feeling that she is frustrated about the game. Why is that? Is it because she was a huge fan of OFP or is it because she has played so much Battlefield 2 so that she can't stand ArmA anymore? But I guess deeper analysis of the game will come later on, hopefully with a lot of reasons why the graphics are that bad and why the game is " generally improved Operation Flashpoint". But oh wait... isn't it what ArmA was all about? I'm not sure what you mean by that, but it seems like you think there isn't such a thing as constructive criticism in game reviews. I think there is. Lets take this review from IGN.com as an example. Here the writer explains why "The free-look aiming controls are sluggish and almost entirely inaccurate". That's good and constructive criticism. What's bad criticism then? He could have just said that the free-look aiming control just sucks instead of saying why he thinks so. Or you mean that there is a lot of constructive criticism in game reviews. If so, I don't see it in this case... but we are talking about the first impression after all. How about another example, this time with first impressions. Joystiq had a chance to try out Madden (football game) on Nintendo's new system: http://www.joystiq.com/2006/05/10/wii-impressions-madden-nfl-07/ Then IGN.com did the same: http://revolution.ign.com/articles/707/707303p1.html So different views from the same game. They have different opinions but I think the IGN one is better. Why? Because it gives insight into the game instead of the impression that game is full of useless gimmicks. So could this be the case with ArmA's preview/impression? I guess we have to wait for further hands-on articles/impressions.

Biased? Aren't these people supposed to review games and not copypaste press reports? A press release is probably the most biased info publisher/developers can give, so copypasting that and saying that is the way it goes is really biased in my mind. Developers/Publishers give their biased view of thing. For example a publisher claims that a game is the greatest action title ever made. It is journalists' job to see if the publisher/developers have delivered what they've promised on the game's cover. But on the other hand a journalist can be biased so that he or she pans the game even though he or she can't state reasons. For example a fanboy of some game could review another game and be too biased in his/her views. I love reviews/articles that try to see things from as many angles as possible. Ofcourse ArmA could be so bad that there isn't anything positive to say about it. I guess we have to wait for further pre-/reviews and try a demo ourselves. But in my eyes everything seems to be shaping up pretty nicely but no doubt the writer has seen more than I have. Criticism is a great thing but I think constructive criticism is what everyone wants.

Possible buyers? Most fans will buy the game but what about those who would love ArmA but their first impression is based on a crappy article? So I think there is a basic responsibility in journalism, you can't be too biased nor spread lies. If something doesn't please constructive criticism should be given. Or at least tell why something sucks.

Nice video! I loved the new animations. The enviroments looked damn nice and pretty huge. Smoke effect could be tweaked but I bet it looks better in game than on the video. New vehicles, MG on Abrams and new music...

1.6 kilometers = 0.994 193 908 miles according to http://www.onlineconversion.com/length_common.htm If that is the default distance in multiplayer mode I'll be happy.

When an AI gets under fire it should find cover and fast! Or if the AI knows where the fire is coming AI should go prone and respond to fire and it doesn't have to be accurate. Now in OFP AI doesn't try to find cover immediately. Think how cool it would be if a sniper shoots one guy from AI squad and the squad takes cover. Then AI's beging scanning the horizon while in cover. AI should also know how tall is the cover, if it is a fance, AI should go prone or crouch behind it. Then AI could peek over the fence by standing up or even better: going to the fence's/building's corner and peeking around it. Not for too long, just to scan for opfor. So I think currently the most important thing to do is to make AI to find and stay in cover. Another thing is also suppressive and covering fire in AI groups.

Oh yes, the screenshots look fantastic! But graphics isn't all what I'm looking for, and I'm not alone. The new interview finally confirmed some things the community has wanted for at least 3 years, like multiple gunner positions, new animations (perhaps even new animation system?) and bullet's kinetic energy. Can't wait for more screens and videos. Now we have to hope that BIS can finish the game and get a publisher they deserve. How long before the release of OFP BIS and CodeM released OFP demo and Resistance demo? I would like to get exact dates because I can't remember them. I hope the same will happen with ArmA but I'm worried about the publisher issue, will they allow BIS to release a demo before the game is finished? I mean the demo was the only thing why I bought OFP, and it was released before OFP was released so it got PR machine moving and a real fan base created, both strongly before the release. I still remember custom demo missions! Oh the joy... Maybe we will hear some news at E3 about the publisher/release issue.

QFT. It'd look horrible on some computers without the blur - rotor blades randomly changing positions when 15 to 30 FPS. The blurred texture does the trick. It looks like it is spinning really fast and looks good enough, even on lower end computers.