[Game] The Armed Assault thread
- Thread starter Ghad
- Start date
I stand by my point, the move CoD4-CoD5 was bigger than ArmA-ArmA2(not that I played ArmA2 but actually having played games before judging seems not to be important for many people on these forums anyways). But since certain people like this game it's of course a totally different matter than with the cod or any other series, and that again shows the subjectivity.
Of course there is more stuff behind ArmA2 but just like there is more behind CoD5 than CoD4 with ww2 skins.
Of course there is more stuff behind ArmA2 but just like there is more behind CoD5 than CoD4 with ww2 skins.
Upvote
0
I don't know which game you mean with the engine comment but I'd say CoD3 should be counted because it isn't just a port like OFP:Elite. It's a new entry in the series. United Offensive and CoD2: Big Red One should be added as well. If we are just going for gameplay similarities there is no reason not to include every Medal of Honor game from Allied Assault up, too. Including Spearhead, Breakthrough and European Assault (haven't played Rising Sun, so I can't say how CoD-esque it is). Men of Honor or whatever that vietnam game is called could be mentioned too.
Besides: The devs always said ArmA was planned as some sort of OFP 1.5 and it was made to generate the funds for the "next-gen game", which should be ArmA2 now if there isn't another weird twist in the game's history that I have missed...
So ArmA not being much more than a visual over-haul for OFP is totally excusable, especially since the visuals are the only thing that is really dated about OFP.
What is inexcusable is that the campaigns that came with the game were bad and that it was a buggy resource-hog when it was released, but that's another story.
I don't know how much better than ArmA ArmA2 is going to be but the focus on the AI sounds very promising and should change the gameplay drastically. I hope vehicles get some love too because they have always been a weak link in the OFP series.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
It is much harder to create something like Ofp/ArmA, than it is CoD/MOH/Misc franchise.
And
The IL2 franchise for example.
IL2 Sturmovik - 2001
IL2 Sturmovik : Forgotten Battles - 2003
IL2 Sturmovik : Ace Expansion Pack - 2004
IL2 Sturmovik : Pacific Fighters - 2004
IL2 Sturmovik : "1946" - 2006
All of these games are very similar, as is my understanding there were some big changes between IL2 and IL2FB, but aside from that - graphical improvements, more content (new planes, new theatres etc), then perfection of the aircraft and fine tuning of the already successful formula. That is the approach you take with simulations...you're not looking to dazzle, you're supposed to be representing. The better a representation you have, the better your simulation is. I don't know anyone who plays IL2 who has gone "ah well xxxx is basically just xxxx with 'new graphics' and a new setting, everything else feels totally the same" - and I can assure you, they do feel the same.
Now compared to your average Action FPS title, OFP/ArmA have destructable buildings and plants, AI controlled wildlife, conflicts involving dozens, maybe even 100 units at a time and a much vaster freedom. Not to mention the tools given to the community to create their own content.
Operation Flashpoint was a landmark title. The only title like it, and the only one really like it since has been ArmA. And, I agree that ArmA is OFP with visual improvements and a several features addressed. But that doesn't make it bad. Bohemia have clearly been trying to achieve something that no one else (until CM took on OFP2) was trying to do.
There is no point in comparing changes between an action fps + sequel, and a simulator + sequel. They aren't similar, and they aren't trying to achieve the same thing.
So, CoD4 is the #3 most played online game (I'm assuming you're looking at GameSpy stats), but the #1 online game is Counter Strike, and #2 is Battlefield 2.
And both of those are pretty mediocre. Why should CoD4's inclusion in that list make it more valid? Since when has how the populous reacted to something been a measure of how good it is?
And
Is exactly what I was talking about when I said you need a different approach when judging a sim.
The IL2 franchise for example.
IL2 Sturmovik - 2001
IL2 Sturmovik : Forgotten Battles - 2003
IL2 Sturmovik : Ace Expansion Pack - 2004
IL2 Sturmovik : Pacific Fighters - 2004
IL2 Sturmovik : "1946" - 2006
All of these games are very similar, as is my understanding there were some big changes between IL2 and IL2FB, but aside from that - graphical improvements, more content (new planes, new theatres etc), then perfection of the aircraft and fine tuning of the already successful formula. That is the approach you take with simulations...you're not looking to dazzle, you're supposed to be representing. The better a representation you have, the better your simulation is. I don't know anyone who plays IL2 who has gone "ah well xxxx is basically just xxxx with 'new graphics' and a new setting, everything else feels totally the same" - and I can assure you, they do feel the same.
Now compared to your average Action FPS title, OFP/ArmA have destructable buildings and plants, AI controlled wildlife, conflicts involving dozens, maybe even 100 units at a time and a much vaster freedom. Not to mention the tools given to the community to create their own content.
Operation Flashpoint was a landmark title. The only title like it, and the only one really like it since has been ArmA. And, I agree that ArmA is OFP with visual improvements and a several features addressed. But that doesn't make it bad. Bohemia have clearly been trying to achieve something that no one else (until CM took on OFP2) was trying to do.
There is no point in comparing changes between an action fps + sequel, and a simulator + sequel. They aren't similar, and they aren't trying to achieve the same thing.
So, CoD4 is the #3 most played online game (I'm assuming you're looking at GameSpy stats), but the #1 online game is Counter Strike, and #2 is Battlefield 2.
And both of those are pretty mediocre. Why should CoD4's inclusion in that list make it more valid? Since when has how the populous reacted to something been a measure of how good it is?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
They didn't say it's "crap", they said it's OFP 1.5. Basically OFP with a visual over-haul and minor improvement and they stated that it was being done to raise money for their real OFP sequel.
People who bought ArmA were either fans of the original who knew about this, so they bought ArmA AND basically donated money to BI, or they were people who were not fans of OFP so they didn't really care it was basically the same game again, or they only passed on OFP because of the ****ty graphics so they were happy as well.
Besides: Compare OFP and Arma again please. You can't possibly argue that the step from CoD4 to 5 was as big as from OFP to ArmA.
People who bought ArmA were either fans of the original who knew about this, so they bought ArmA AND basically donated money to BI, or they were people who were not fans of OFP so they didn't really care it was basically the same game again, or they only passed on OFP because of the ****ty graphics so they were happy as well.
Besides: Compare OFP and Arma again please. You can't possibly argue that the step from CoD4 to 5 was as big as from OFP to ArmA.
Upvote
0
Then why in gods name does it make CoD bad? If you want to have a serious discussion than you can't just throw in your own opinions all the time and present them as facts. Counter-Strike, whether you like it or not, is one of the most important games in video game history and has definitely influenced other multiplayer games. Metacritic rating is 88.
Battlefield 2 was one of the greatest successes in gaming history and brought the Military-FPS genre to a completely new level. Plus they were one of the first games really utilizing the rank/reward system in an FPS game. It's the 2nd most played online game. Metacritic score is 91.
So stick to the facts. When both players and critics agree that a game is great then there will be some truth behind that. Even if it's not your opinion. But if you just take your own opinion as facts then you can't have a logical discussion either.
Now guess what I've played CoD4 MP until Lvl55, BF2 long time as well. But I've also played OFP twice, plus the two addons and at least 10 custom campaigns plus maps, in fact I even created my own missions because I loved that game. And I played ArmA and finished it in SP as well and after 2 hours I pretty much loved it as well.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I would argue the step is about the same, actually. CoD5 was more or less a keeping of the basic foundation and systems of CoD4, with a new coat of paint. ArmA is exactly the same, it's a graphically updated version of OFP, and the developers were not shy of that (officially calling it OFP 1.5). I love ArmA as much as most others here, but you're lying to yourself if you think it's dramatically different from OFP.
Upvote
0
I don't recall saying anything to do with OFP/ArmA made CoD bad...CoDs gameplay/development/publishers philosophy were bad long before we started this discussion.
I really don't care what the metacritic score is for CS, as I have pointed out on dozens of occasions...HL2 has a metascore of 96, and I consider it (along with Doom3) to be one of the most over-rated titles of all time. And I don't care how good CS used to be, or how important it was - the fact is that it is still the #1 title now.
You tried to argue that if the philosophy applied to ArmA/ArmA2 was the same as our philosophy towards CoD4/CoD5 the same then we should rail against ArmA2...that was how this discussion started.
Again - Metacritic scores...
"greatest successes in gaming history and brought the Military-FPS genre to a completely new level" - That's a very objective viewpoint you have there.
There might be some truth behind it, but as discussed many times in the #redorchestra channel the industry exists to continue its existance.
A publication/website isn't going to start giving games bad scores when giving them good scores means they get access to the newest games, in turn bringing more people to read their website/magazine (as it has the latest news), and publishers will then in turn advertise using their website/magazine (due to its high rate of traffic/high sales). Games critics aren't objective, it isn't in their interests to do so.
Couple a reviewing bias with big advertising power and media presence and you have the reason why people will buy, and enjoy a game the way they do.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
OFP and Arma play the same.
CoD4 and CoD5 play the same.
Now look at a screenshot from OFP and at one from ArmA. Then take a look at a screenshot from CoD4 and at one from CoD5.
You will notice that the step from OFP to ArmA is dramatical and the step from CoD4 to CoD5 is.. there.. somewhat.
If CoD5 is worth its 50 bucks then ArmA easily was.
Upvote
0
The timeframe between OFP and ArmA was 5 years, between CoD4 and CoD:WaW 1 year. Of course the graphical difference was bigger.
Upvote
0
ArmA has some flaws, but dudes, seriously, it isnt just a graphical update like some claim it is. What other game that you can think of offers so much as Armed Assault does? The sea reacting to storms, ability to read the stars, day and night cycle, random weather, NVG's being affected by lightsources, sound taking time to arrive over distance, hell, butterflies with their own damn shadows and reacting to gunfire (at least they seem to do to me), bullet ballistics and ricochets, i could go on for a little while.
Those are all gameplay-affecting new stuff they added in Armed Assault and wasnt there in OFP except for the starnavigation and ballistics, but the ricochets ARE new. ArmA is pretty far from 'just' a graphical overhaul.
Those are all gameplay-affecting new stuff they added in Armed Assault and wasnt there in OFP except for the starnavigation and ballistics, but the ricochets ARE new. ArmA is pretty far from 'just' a graphical overhaul.
Upvote
0
It was just the storyline which wasn't up to Operation Flashpoint's standards.
But I'm sure they'll be able to correct that at least somewhat.
The keyword for Armed Assault 2 now is performance.
Upvote
0
As you said, most of them already existed in OFP. But IMO graphical bump was alone enough for ArmA.
ArmA2 on the other hand doesn't deserve it's name. It's an expansion pack at it's best. Just more eye candy, nothing "under the hood" except AI. They don't care about the "simulation" part since OFP at all.
ArmA2 on the other hand doesn't deserve it's name. It's an expansion pack at it's best. Just more eye candy, nothing "under the hood" except AI. They don't care about the "simulation" part since OFP at all.
Upvote
0
So? Who cares about the reason?
Treyarch could have waited 5 years before releasing CoD:WaW and made it a kick-*** title that truly improved on CoD4 instead of going all FiFa on it but they didn't. They created a game which isn't really worth having if you already have CoD2 and 4.
There is enough reason to get ArmA even if you have OFP or OFP:Elite though, even if it's just the visual upgrade.
What makes OFP play so great aren't the bullet ballistics but the huge maps and the AI. They improved the huge maps and the AI.
What remains to be seen is how much the AI has been improved. The AI fellows did well on open ground but in areas with a lot of cover they didn't work. Now that they can take cover and stuff this should help things greatly.
So much for the strong points. The two weakest points in ArmA were vehicles and the campaign.
I'm optimistic about the campaign for some reason. ArmA introduced some nice things like selectible missions and they can do great things with that in ArmA2 if they pay attention to the logic of the missions. They already crafted great campaigns once (in OFP) so they can do it again if they put enough care into it.
I'm not so optimistic about the vehicles though. They felt like arcadey-but-arbitrarily-clumsier to me in both OFP and ArmA.
Another thing that should introduce some new aspects to the realism of the portrayed warfare are civilians. That's a factor that could have a huge impact in some missions if it's implemented in a satisfactory manner. If it's just new models for the random t-shirt frat-boys known from ArmA it would be a shame because there is great potential in realistic civilians.
Wildlife could be great too if it acts somewhat realistic.
Upvote
0
Yes, who cares about the reason, let's just take something completely out of context
And once again, that is just your very personal opinion and you can't counter facts with your opinion. Besides Call of Duty: World at War has an average metacritic score of 88 and sold twice as many copies in the first week as Call of Duty 4.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
To be honest I'm more excited about ArmAII than OFP2 since the latter one is also developed for X360 which could mean a more arcadey and consolified gameplay. Even knowing the fact that it's being developed by Codemasters speaks for itself.
I don't care if ArmAII is a prettier looking game with some improvements. As long as BIA sticks to their plans and reaches their goals by making a quality sequel I'd definitely pay a good money for it. ArmA has a lot of annoyances, but I still think it's the most unique military shooter around these days. Just think about it, how many co-op supported, open-ended and realistic war games do you have?
I don't care if ArmAII is a prettier looking game with some improvements. As long as BIA sticks to their plans and reaches their goals by making a quality sequel I'd definitely pay a good money for it. ArmA has a lot of annoyances, but I still think it's the most unique military shooter around these days. Just think about it, how many co-op supported, open-ended and realistic war games do you have?
Upvote
0
@ Murphy, there will be civilians in ArmA2, you can even talk to them. I think the campaign is supposed to be more dynamic, even more then ArmA letting you chose missions etc. That's what they originally wanted with OFP too, but couldnt accomplish back in the day.
You can see some remnants of that in OFP though, because missions dont always end the same way, and even leads to new takes on other missions.
For example, i can clearly remember a mission where i was lying in a forest with my squadmates ones, we had to get away from an island. I had to stay put in the forest, while my squad was ordered to move into open ground where they got massacred and then i had to retreat and get away on my own. I think that was a different version of the mission where you have to get to a port all by yourself.
You can see some remnants of that in OFP though, because missions dont always end the same way, and even leads to new takes on other missions.
For example, i can clearly remember a mission where i was lying in a forest with my squadmates ones, we had to get away from an island. I had to stay put in the forest, while my squad was ordered to move into open ground where they got massacred and then i had to retreat and get away on my own. I think that was a different version of the mission where you have to get to a port all by yourself.
Upvote
0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4-gh-80fL4&feature=relatedAre those vids known already? Because I just found them and they were uploaded November 11th and I haven#t seen them before.
First impressions:
House destruction looks rather bad(having played BF Bad Company) and the civilian AI behavior looks kinda weird. The world however looks awesome.
*edit* Just saw that it appearantly is GC2008 footage but maybe some of you havent seen it yet.
First impressions:
House destruction looks rather bad(having played BF Bad Company) and the civilian AI behavior looks kinda weird. The world however looks awesome.
*edit* Just saw that it appearantly is GC2008 footage but maybe some of you havent seen it yet.
Last edited:
Upvote
0