dpolwarth

Hi guys, I have the same problem under WinXP. I have since installed the game on Vista64 and found that the problem does not occur with the latest drivers on that operating system. I use a dual-boot system, so this does seem to narrow it down to the WinXP drivers. Incidentally, the game runs very nicely under Vista64 with no really noticable difference to WinXP. That's not much help if you currently have WinXP I know, but it might persuade you to upgrade to Windows7 when it comes out (its based on Vista).

Game frozen several times now. Tried to include the bug report files with this report but it will not let me post files. ---------- Post added at 02:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:11 PM ---------- You can't find the files because you need to switch on hidden files and folders in the view menu first.

This is a dumb question, but why are people given roles in the multiplayer game? I entered the game once assigned a pilot's role, but I can't fly. I rearmed at the gear station, but ever since then I've wondered why people are given these roles. Is it to speed up getting into the game? Are we supposed to stick to our roles? I've rarely been able to alter my assigned role as I like to play on heavily populated servers. If someone would give me a basic explanation on the significance of roles I would appreciate it. Thanks, Dan

I don't know. I wasn't aware you got instantly banned on that server for just one teamkill. Are you sure it wasn't something more?

To be fair, I should declare I am something of a troll on this site. But I can't really have people say that the Multiplayer on Arma2 is awful. It is far, far better than the single-player campaign, and shows a lot of potential. I have fun on it, and given that I'm a fag-paper's width away from being banned on this forum, that's saying something. I'm certainly not the kind of person who wants to shoot down people making genuine criticism, but I can't agree that multiplayer is broken. AI is hard to get right. If BI bring a patch in the next few weeks that deals with the super-human enemies then I think we can safely say the multiplayer aspect of this game is fine. Better than fine - its excellent. I am aware that there is a problem with it, but multiplayer Arma2 is far better than most first-person twitch shooters. Its true that far too many people are happy to put up with shoddy work. But in this case I'm not going to condemn BI for the work they've done. In fact, I'm inclined to praise them on their multiplayer code.

It does end, but in a way you don't think it will. If you go to the town where you are supposed to meet up with the guys whose names begin with 'M' (but I can't remember the rest of them) the mission will not end. Nothing happens in that town. There are a few baddies camped out, but thats it. What will happen is a message should appear telling you at 5 O'clock that the time is up to leave and you must decide who you want to pitch in with. I went into the town after receiving this message to look for contacts, killed the bad guys, and nothing happened. So i stole the bad guys APC and drove all the way to the farm that was pinpointed on the map. The mission ends automatically at that point. Unless I'm thinking about completely the wrong mission ...

I'm sick of it. I hate it. The Manhattan mission is one bug after another, with pointless and unrealistic objectives. What do I have to do to end it? I've found a couple of camps. I've destroyed a base camp. I've rescued the woman. I've found the weapons cache. Come on ... what the Hell more do you want from me? It's been absolute fucking toture from the moment the mission started, one bug after another. What will satisfy it? It's fucking purgatory. When does it end?

Having played this game up through and into Manhattan I am beginning to find that the missions have a seriously unrealistic quality to them. The notion that you can jump into any friendly vehicle and take it without signing for it, the idea that you can drive any vehicle despite not being trained for it, and some of the mission assignments break any sense of immersion. Some of tasks are clearly CIA tasks, not military. My team seem to be made up of people with unusually high talent who can drive any vehicle at all. When you consider that most Americans have never driven a manual gearbox, you get the idea of how dumb this aspect is. Also, while American scouts do indeed drive Bradley APCs, they each have a specific role and do not swap roles at the drop of a hat. This whole thing could have been solved with smarter mission creation. Go to a quartermaster to sign out for gear before accomplishing a mission, for example. Little things like that make the whole thing seem more polished and immersive. Its a shame, because so much attention has gone on the realism of combat, and nothing at all has gone on the rudimentary procedures of army life. Even the dumbest first-person shooters always have a sequence where you go to the quartermaster to pick up your weapons. Anyone else feel this way, or is it just me?

You know, the more time I spend on these forums, the more a question pops into my mind: Who is the bigger cunt? BIS for releasing this joke? Or me for buying it?

Finished this mission at last. Its nasty. It is oh, so nasty. It is a deeply, deeply unpleasant experience and I will never, never go through the horror of that again. I think if I ever lose my savegames this game is going straight in the bin. Awful. Shocking. Nasty. Bastard, bastard, bastard.

My suggestion is to correct the woeful lack of realism in the missions. Simple facts: 1) people need to check weapons and vehicles out at a quartermaster. You don't just walk in and drive them off. Also, you don't leave them behind - everything must be accounted for or people will just end up selling their gear off (in real life.) 2) Soldiers are trained for one job, and one job only. You are a driver, or a loader, or a gunner etc. You can't do all three. Plus, you can't drive multiple vehicles. One vehicle, one station. That's the law of the military. 3) Soldiers don't interrogate civilians, and are not expected to find intelligence. That is the CIA's remit. If intelligence gathering is needed the CIA will do it, or specifically brief hand-picked men to do the job. Soldiers are just bullet-stoppers - even special ops. 4) Regular troops and officers hate and distrust special ops troops. They don't give them carte blanche to swan round the area causing havoc. They see them as potential loose cannons, and to some extent they are right to hold this opinion. Despite what the movies depict, special ops troops are not always gifted with bright, insightful minds, so you don't give them delicate political missions. You have trained civilian liaison officers for that sort of thing. 5) When did armoured vehicle start operating alone? The are all attached to larger military units, and do not under any circumstances work alone unless they are specifically tasked with scouting. Furthermore, scouts are told never to engage the enemy because they act alone. So why does every enemy vehicle seem to be moving around without backup of any kind? 6) No one, but no one, gets to go on UAVs at the drop of a hat. Their missions have to be specially tasked, and only highly trained operators go near them. You ask them for intelligence, and they supply videos and other details. They are not a Playstation terminal. Also, they operate at very high altitudes in order to provide a stable unmoving image - in ARMA2 they seem to be flying way too low to get accurate images. 7) Where is the satellite data? 8) Where are the logistics operations? Why are there no trucks supplying ammunition and food and all the other essentials? While I accept that some combat realism must be sacrificed to make better gameplay, the above points are all part of the mission design. They do not affect gameplay, just make it necessary for mission designers to put more thought into presentation. While the current campaign in the game is utterly worthless, I have no doubt you will be releasing a forthcoming addon. I would ask that you ensure that the issues raised above are addressed. However, I do not claim to speak for everyone. If any people agree or disagree with me then please comment below.

I think you make some valid points. I don't understand why people seem to be attacking you. I also noticed the incorrect pronunciation. I feel that the voice acting in the game is mixed - Cooper is excellent (though clearly not black.) Some of the voice actors are very poor. I think the production of the voice acting is poor - there should always be a producer on hand when this stuff is recorded to let the voice actors know how things should be pronounced and what context a sentence is said in. It seems there was no dialogue producer for this game which led to the voice actors being in the dark. This leads to mistakes like you have mentioned. I also feel that there is poor immersion in this game, despite the huge effort BI have made to make the game real in terms of combat. I don't feel you deserved to be attacked for making what I feel to be serious and worthwhile points. While its true this game has many bugs that need fixing, that does not mean that immersion must suffer also. Simply adding a voice producer would have solved much of the problems that occur in the dialogue. As for the sound of bullets, I have never been on a battlefield so won't comment.

Where do Bohemia interactive hail from? Eastern Europe? Probably not too many black people over there to do voice acting. And the ones that are spend a lot of time dodging lynching squads. Eastern Europe is not exactly known for its inclusive, open-minded social norms. If you want proof, look at what happens when a football team with black players visits.

You could try an automated kick - if someone has shot more than x number of their team members their team can vote them off. They are told why the person has been flagged for kicking, and asked if they want them voted off. That way someone who is either trigger happy or a team killer gets to go without the need for admin intervention or a blind vote.

I take your point vshadow, but you seem to be suggesting that you can't have both. I think you can. To continue with the previous example: the woman goes off in a civilian car. The fighting hits a lull - the bad guys in town are vanquished, but the woman has done a runner. The player tells everyone to board a civilian vehicle nearby. The following dialogue ensues: Your sergeant turns round: "We can't catch her in an APC, its too slow. Which of you dumb fucks can drive that car?" [points to a civilian vehicle.] [first soldier] "Oh man, that's a manual gearbox. Fuck that." [another soldier] "I can drive it. My sister has one like that over in England that she lets me drive from time to time." [sergeant] "Well get in it fuckwit." Everyone bundles aboard, cue much crunching of gears and pisstaking as the driver tries to get it in gear. The whole dialogue is triggered by the player selecting a vehicle to drive in the context of the scripted mission. You see - immersion. By keeping missions small and tight you have a known context, and so you can carefully script your missions knowing the context the action will take place in. So you can have the best of both worlds with a little thought and planning.

I feel this mission is just a case of how the game designer's ambitions have exceeded the game engine. There was no need to make this mission so long and drawn out. It could have been broken up easily, or better still shortened, to make it less likely for faults to appear. The Arma2 game engine is competent, but its not great. A large mission like this is way too complex for it to cope with. Don't hold your breath for it to ever be working bug-free.

Thanks for the feedback guys. The thing is, I like this game. It may surprise you, but I don't bother posting criticisms on games I don't like. The suggestions I made were just off the top of my head, and I wouldn't expect all of them to be realised in any new campaign. The point was that while individual points can be overlooked, the overall effect of the game is confusing. Is it meant to be a military simulator? Then why not simulate military life? And if its not and is meant to appeal to 'dumb' players then why bother to make it realistic in combat? I should point out there is a huge thread on this forum complaining about how shot penetration of armoured vehicles does not represent real-life effects. While I totally understand how to some people that is important, in my mind it is not as important as telling an immersive story. Anything that makes me feel I'm just playing a sandbox computer game destroys any sense of immersion. Let me give you a practical example. Break down the missions in Manhattan. For example, you need to arrest a woman in a town. Intelligence agents have gathered that information and need a reasonable sized unit (at least a platoon) to act on it. You are part of that unit. Tell the story: where is your platoon to start with? Are they resting? If so, what are they discussing - politics, girls, weapons, complaining about blisters on their feet etc. Keep the dialogue close to real military jargon and humour. Then the sergeant comes over and berates them, tells them to get together because they have to act fast on fresh information. They jump in an APC ready to take off. But true to military life there's a problem and they have wait around for a while (the 'hurry up and wait' scenario.) Finally on the move, word has gotten out and and they're expected, and already people are trying to smuggle the woman out in a civilian car. Cue action ... Not difficult is it? In a word, 'immersion.' Its amazing how so many people seem to find this sort of thing unnecessary. They don't seem to understand the importance of telling a good story, and how it can make or break any sense of realism. Simple things like keeping dialogue accurate to current military humour and slang, following military procedure (and breaking it as you would in real life) are all parts of keeping a story moving and fluent. It is utterly missing in the campaign as it stands. Theres a vague, confused sense of wandering around in a Grand Theft Auto kind of way. Some of you feel that other things need fixing, and I agree there are a lot of bugs. But I also feel that there is no coherent story or thread to the missions, and this makes or breaks a game. Its the one thing that can't be fixed with a patch. Thanks anyway for your feedback.

The sound quality is very poor. I am using a pair of Adam A5 studio monitors and I can tell from the grainy, weak sound that some kind of digital compression was used (by compression I mean number-crunching, not dynamic compression.) There are also serious sonic artifacts throughout the game. Not all of the sound is bad - the bullet snapping is quite good. But overall it lacks punch, uses weak samples, and seems to have all the life compressed out of it. I don't know who designs the sound for you, but you really need to get another guy in. The good news is its a recession, so there will be plenty of talented people out of work right now.

There is a black voice actor in the game - he does Private Smith, who you meet at the checkpoint in the Manhattan mission. Except the character private smith looks a white redneck with a black man's voice. I'm sure there's a moral to this point, but I can't find it.

No Largie I haven't found that camp, but I did drive through there once and nothing was flagged. Looks like I'll have to be going back. Thanks for the tip.

Think about other 'dumbed down' games like Call of Duty 4. These games simplify the combat system but make the game feel immersive with all the little military details. In Call of Duty 4 everything felt militarily accurate, right until you started shooting when it turned into just another first-person shooter. Now compare that to ARMA2. ARMA2 does precisely the opposite. As a game it is utterly, utterly unrealistic until the shooting starts, and then suddenly it becomes ultra-realistic. COD4 appealed to people who wanted to play at war. They wanted to feel they were in a military unit but didn't want the hassle of learning to fight like real soldiers. The routine of daily military life is easy to replicate and not difficult to play, so they put thta in COD4. By contrast, realistic combat is very hard to play and replicate, and ARMA2 does this exceptionally well. So I put it to you that anyone who wants to play a dumbed-down shooter will not enjoy ARMA2. So why not go the whole hog and design it with the military realism of COD4? Its not actually all that difficult, and most people who appreciate the immersion it adds to the whole gaming experience. For example: why is Manhattan one big mission? Why not simply break it down into bite-sized pieces that gives the editor much more control over what the user sees. You can then polish it and ensure that the bugs you get in the current giant mission would not happen. You could make it more immersive by obeying military routine (remember the opening of Manhattan when you have to check in at the gate - more like that please!) In short, people looking for a simple FPS will not like ARMA2. Its a game for people who want realism - and yet its woefully short on realism in so many areas, largely due to crude mission design. And I totally agree with Sulu - no more Special Ops missions. If you're going to create a warfare simulator, why are we playing a 4-man superteam, none of which have any personality or any particular skills I can fathom that would make them suitable for Special Ops? The only guy who has any particular skill is Cooper who can talk the language. The others are just regular soldiers (with a superhuman ability to drive any imaginable vehicle). I want to be out in a field in a regular unit, not traipsing round aimlessly with slack-jawed rednecks. The developers just don't seem to have understood their target audience at all. I suspect Operation Flashpoint by Codemasters is going to be the game I will be spending my time on in future when it comes out.

Yeah, I've heard you press the minus button on the keypad then type endmission. The thing is, I want to complete the mission properly if I can, but I don't know what flags need to be set in order for it to decide the mission is done. I know that people have said you don't need to complete everything to get to the end of the mission, but I would like to know what missions you do need to complete.

I think you'll find the chopper has been shot down. If you go looking for it you'll probably find the crash site somewhere. If it gets shot down you can't complete the mission and have to reload. It sometimes gets brought down when it overflies an enemy area. See if you can take on the enemies first before going to the extraction point.

Arrested the woman, got her to the escort point. Loads of baddies show up, I shoot them down. But no escort turns up to get her. Is it a helo? If it is, I think it gets shot down because its flight path passes directly over the sodding main enemy camp. Either that, or there is no escort wating for me. Gah! Where am I going wrong? Is it bugged?

Hi, I have a dual-boot system and would like to install Arma II on the fastest operating system. I have Vista 64, and windows XP. I have 6 gigs of RAM which XP cannot access, but Vista is generally considered slower for gaming. Which would you recommend I install it to? Thanks, Daniel