Soviet is right, ArmA is a multiplayer game. If you treat it like a singleplayer game expecting a good campaign like OFP's, you will be disappointed. But even though ArmA has great co-op, I'm not surprised at all the people being disappointed in the game, because Bohemia simply delivered an unfinished product. It runs bad on even the fastest computers and it suffers from TERRIBLE lag. They've never fixed this, and I think it's unacceptable that they started working on ArmA2 without finishing the first part first.
Still, I recommend those people to try co-op on an Evolution server with a bunch of players on TS / Vent.
Wrong.
I'd say it's the other way around. Bohemia Interactive have the right idea and design philosophy (= big online realistic battles on a huge map), but they suck at optimizing their game. They proved this with ArmA. You might say that they'll fix this in ArmA2, but I doubt it. ArmA2 looks exactly like the first part, just watch the screenshots and videos. My guess it will run just as **** as ArmA.
Yes, they may be the original creators of OFP, but if the game runs bad, it ruins the game for even the biggest fans.
Operation Flashpoint 2 on the other hand, is being developed by Codemasters. I'm thinking (hoping) that these guys pay more attention to optimizing their game, and not make the multiplay as laggy as ArmA's. It will run on the same engine that
Colin McRae Dirt uses, and it's capable of rendering good looking foliage. Which is very important for a game like that.
Dirt runs well on my PC, so my hopes for OFP2 are higher than for ArmA2. Of course we'll have to see if that engine is capable of rendering a map as big as Sarahni.
Judging that interview with Codemasters in PC Gamer, it seems they have the right design philosophy as well. In other words:
- BIs have the right idea, but the poor technology (they better get their **** together).
- Codemasters have the right idea, and good technology as well (hopefully).
I'd say they're pretty much neck to neck. It'll be fierce competition, methinks.