Leopardi

just 7 votes away from planetside 2, c'mon push it :p

I think its better when you just are in there in the war, follow orders as a normal soldier and try to survive.

I thought it was good, but concentrated too much on leading.

No dude it is not just nostalgia. It's so easy to accuse that everything is just nostalgia. If it was just nostalgia I wouldn't have replayed the game 8 years later. The problem is not the time setting, it's how ARMA campaigns are made to be just emotionless warfare. "do this and this, only succeeding mission will make you go forward". In OFP everything goes wrong like in real war and you are just a grunt trying to survive, following orders and the story goes forward instead of just another mission after another mission.

I define it "CWC". Simple fun missions where you are just a soldier doing your duty and attempting to survive but nothing really goes like planned. Not attempting to be the leader of amy and win the war.

The radio messages going on etc. sure did make it feel like you are tiny part in a war going on the whole island.

yeah this, that's what makes the feeling youre really in a war.

I like to think, but not as a leader. Like in CWC campaign, you were just a grunt in the middle of a horrible mess trying to survive and nothing goes like planned. Suddenly you were all alone in a forest in russian territory trying to just make it out alive in great atmosphere.

My ears bleed when I hear that same boom. And it's not just lack of variety. There is no distance (air absorbtion etc.) or echoing taken into account at all, it's just the same boring soundfile being triggered, thats how advanced the sound engine is. Of course there are near perfect sounds too, like tank engines, the PKT, the jet sounds or the helicopter cockpit sounds. I wouldn't change them. But when you look at the overall audio experience for the average grunt crawling on the battlefield, it is just downright poor. My personal review for the overall audio experience excluding some vehicles is pure garbage, 3/10. In my opinion, audio is one of the biggest factors that make playing enjoyable in a large scale milsim game such as ArmA. Overlooking it is just bad business. I don't feel like "being there" with arma II default audio. Take example from Tripwire, they have spent more time on the audio department of RO2 alone than the whole development of RO1.

has the work shifted for preparing to Arma3 or whats with the silence?

There are 3 things that will make me buy ArmA III: *A OFP:CWC/Red Hammer/Resistance style campaign *Smooth lifelike soldier animations for immersion *Non-warpy netcode (especially the bots in co-ops) Please accomplish at least one of these BIS. :pray:

Even if you were deaf, you could still tell the sounds in ArmA II are unrealistic. That same explosion is used in many games, WiC fuel air bomb comes to my mind for example. Now I understand you if the sounds were close to realistic, but most of them are not even close to what you'd expect from real sounds.

I just hate the ELITE SPECIAL FORCES thing. OFP was great because it was chaotic and you were just trying to survive with a good plot. now its just executing special forces missions without any heart.

Yeah I dont really feel like buying if I hear the same library/whatever cheap sounds is used in ArmA 2... If I heard a trailer with realistic explosion sounds, reverbs, echos etc. I would simply not be able to resist buying ArmA 3.

I don't understand. Are you saying that you can't tell if ArmA II sounds are realistic or not? Then good luck to you.

Well look at RO1 sounds. You hear distant gunfire, explosions, tank cannon sounds realistically different than you do close up. Simply using a distance swapping for sound files. The sounds are excellent in that game too.

BF3 will have 80 audio channels per one vehicle, for different sounds for different kind of angles. With 1 CPU core. Also distant sounds are very well modelled on the HDR engine. You can have very realistic audio on todays hardware, that's not an obstacle.

I was referring to all the environmental factors. In arma at any distance its just a "zoomf". Also I've stood next to a T34 firing its 85mm cannon, it sounded more like an explosion than a "snap" and the shockwave made the snow masses on the ground move. In any case the arma 2 sound cannot be considered a real-life simulation at all.

Yep that's the one... like a placeholder left in the game from a pre-pre-alpha version.

OFP AI seemed more intelligent, like they worked just like intented. It's like they added all these features without having a plan on how to make it all work smoothly.

-More realistic sound samples -More variety in sound samples -Echo, reverb, air absorbtion for audio thread: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=119343

well yeah I rushed a bit with the first post, fixed it now

My ears bleed when I hear that same boom. And it's not just lack of variety. There is no distance (air absorbtion etc.) or echoing taken into account at all, it's just the same boring soundfile being triggered, thats how advanced the sound engine is. Of course there are near perfect sounds too, like tank engines, the PKT, the jet sounds or the helicopter cockpit sounds. I wouldn't change them. But when you look at the overall audio experience for the average grunt crawling on the battlefield, it is just downright poor. My personal review for the overall audio experience excluding some vehicles is pure garbage, 3/10. In my opinion, audio is one of the biggest factors that make playing enjoyable in a large scale milsim game such as ArmA. Overlooking it is just bad business. I don't feel like "being there" with arma II default audio.

If anyone's a troll it's if you think ArmA II sounds are somehow realistic and good. Audio is a major weakpoint of the game, and you keep saying against any improvements. I can't think of any reason why would you not want improved audio for ArmA 3. I know I won't be buying the game if audio is going to be like arma 2.

Reviewers agree with me. Reality agrees with me. Just your opinion agrees with you.