I really hope you're not judging ARMA based on your pub experiences, because that would be hilarious.
sure it's not perfect, but it's the most realistic game you can buy for money
there are alot of pvp servers, so it's your fault when playing on coop servers
3rd person view? it's again your fault, play on veteran servers
While I agree that MP in arma is more or less useless I don't agree about the co-op. Contact people at Bohemia Interactive's official forums, or sites such as armaholic, and you will have the best tactical gameplay with people all over the globe. Since you pretend to know about the game how come you didn't know this?
Also, what game is more realistic than arma?
Answer: None at the moment.
It's not. But, for some reason the community thinks it is. The ArmA series is so vastly over-rated. The multiplayer mode is really nothing to speak of, being that pvp is basically nonexistent, and the co-op battles are fought against lifeless and nonstrategic AI.
Two things I always hated about Arma/II first it controls like crap second and the realism killer for me is on screen cross hairs.
You're talking about the gameplay you've experienced. OP was referring to the game environment. ARMA is head and shoulders beyond anything else out there in that department. I'll admit that MP gameplay can be a letdown at times, but when it's good, there's nothing like it.
The movement can be clunky, especially in CQB (kind of reminds me of the sticky cover syndrome in HOS) but just turn up the difficulty setting and the cross hairs will go away.....
The OP is correct, bigger maps will solve a lot of the RNG problems with the game and make people play smarter and more cooperative if they want to survive. In ARMA, the most important things that keep you alive are, remaining unseen as long as possible, staying in cover and maintaining a superior force and position on the battlefield. A quick twitching trigger finger doesn't get you very far, unlike in HOS where it's the #1 requirement.
Two things I always hated about Arma/II first it controls like crap second and the realism killer for me is on screen cross hairs.
What? You can say RO2 is funner, or that you prefer it (I do). But ArmA 2 is a better "sim" than RO2. Period. This is not subjective, unless your definition of "simulation" is completely different from mine and indeed, most others.Its a pretty good sim but, not sure alot say its a superior sim compared to RO.
Complaining about crosshairs and third person view in ArmA is like complaining about a flight sim having casual settings. Surely you know they're all optional? A Veteran server would NOT have these things.
What? You can say RO2 is funner, or that you prefer it (I do). But ArmA 2 is a better "sim" than RO2. Period. This is not subjective, unless your definition of "simulation" is completely different from mine and indeed, most others.
This reminds me of reading discussions of people who got into flight sims with IL2 trying to pit it against Lock-On + modules ofr Falcon 4.0. I do prefer IL2 to F4 for example, but they're barely in the same league - anyone can see the latter is much more preoccupied with full simulation first, "fun" and "balance" second.
---
Right. Arma II is a realistic game, isn't it?
Guess what? There's the zoom, guns don't have much recoil and there's no sway unless you've ran for a good while before aiming and even then it goes away quickly AND you can control breathing. Overall aiming was more accurate than in RO2, but modern optics on the guns (and modern guns of course) add to that - but here comes the thing : people shot many times towards a single guy and there were firefights with plenty of misses. People in Arma 2 are slower and more clumsy than people in RO. Do you know why a lot of shots missed?
Because in general those shots were made from above 200 meters. If we had bigger maps in RO, you'd see there's no need to artificially weaken the guns or massively deduct player accuracy due to everyone being too accurate - it's more about stamina not having any effect and small maps than anything else.
Two things I always hated about Arma/II first it controls like crap second and the realism killer for me is on screen cross hairs.Its a pretty good sim but, not sure alot say its a superior sim compared to RO.
I spent more time in the map editor making single player missions lol it had a killer editor for that with easy to use AI script.
So we just have to wait for the mythical mega-maps to come out that allow ambushes in unexpected places and assaults from a multitude of angles, all from realistic engagement ranges, and still focus the action on specific (but not always identical!) points, perhaps via a "mission editor" and then the weapon-handling in RO2 will fit right in and we can finally discard every one of those horrible maps the game shipped with for some reason although it's clearly meant to work on a different kind of map altogether?
Perfect!
OR we could adjust the gameplay so it works on the kind of maps we have, and the kind of maps we're most likely going to see more of both in official patches/DLC and as custom content.
As Cyper said, RO isn't a combat simulator. It's a tactical shooter. And to make it work as such changes are needed. Be it revamped or at least tweaked gameplay mechanics or a switch to huge island maps... Whichever seems more reasonable.
So we just have to wait for the mythical mega-maps to come out that allow ambushes in unexpected places and assaults from a multitude of angles, all from realistic engagement ranges, and still focus the action on specific (but not always identical!) points, perhaps via a "mission editor" and then the weapon-handling in RO2 will fit right in and we can finally discard every one of those horrible maps the game shipped with for some reason although it's clearly meant to work on a different kind of map altogether?
Perfect!
OR we could adjust the gameplay so it works on the kind of maps we have, and the kind of maps we're most likely going to see more of both in official patches/DLC and as custom content.
As Cyper said, RO isn't a combat simulator. It's a tactical shooter. And to make it work as such changes are needed. Be it revamped or at least tweaked gameplay mechanics or a switch to huge island maps... Whichever seems more reasonable.
OR we could have them bigger maps with slightly adjusted gameplay?
No need for making stuff more difficult than it is in real life, as in RO1. Making stuff exactly as difficult as it is in real life, I'm all up for though.
Hey Poer; I thought you were bugging out to the steam forums?
and regarding ARMA, if you want realism, you need to download various mods and play within a community.
Nothing like rolling in a Hmmv convoy with 30 other players when an IED explodes and you come under sniper fire. Then coordinating your team with the movements of the other teams in the convoy to hunt down the sniper, then call in an jdam from an actual pilot.
I get the feeling that ranges in RO are not accurate.
I've shot people at 200 metres distant and yet it seems like they are much further away. This is probably where the criticism comes from, enemies seem to be bloody miles away when in reality they are very rarely outside the effective range of even then shortest range weapons.
I didn't, they're still STEAM forums.
Tried installing Community Base Addon or whateveritwas today and Invasion 1944. Failed miserably, apparently I'm not enough tech-savvy.
I get the feeling that ranges in RO are not accurate.
I've shot people at 200 metres distant and yet it seems like they are much further away. This is probably where the criticism comes from, enemies seem to be bloody miles away when in reality they are very rarely outside the effective range of even then shortest range weapons.