Or perhaps they are getting sick (or fear us getting sick) of the same M4/M16+MOD's rehashing in every single game and thought it was time for a new weapon to keep things a bit more fresh in terms of equipment, even if they are less realistic.
Also, i have to say, having played VBS2 it isn't that much more of a complete package compared to ArmA 2, except for the training tools like replay function which was impressive.
But when it comes to, for example, movement systems, ArmA 2 is much, much better because VBS2 still runs on ArmA 1-style engine (meaning that in VBS2 you still do have to stop to reload, you cant change stance while moving, etc.)
Next to the AAR functions VBS2 offers (with even visible bullets looking like lasers to make them stand out and let the people see where their rounds went), it offers some additional stuff like being able to build roadblocks (which isnt interesting to most people, but if it is it could be added via mods too), and small other stuff like that (though i cant claim to have seen ALL that VBS2 can do, this is just from personal experience and some promo-video's for VBS2 that i remember having seen).
Most impressive though is VBS2's ability to load a satmap and generate an ingame map off of it. Though highly basic in initial form, it allows for exact replica's of actual situations.
I remember a story one lieutenant told me about, where they had a squad of soldiers training in VBS2 right before they shipped off to Afghanistan.
They had an exact replica of the area they were going to in VBS2, and they practised ambushes in various locations.
Well, during their deployment in Afghanistan one of the situations they trained for actually happened on the exact location they had trained in in VBS2
Because they had some practise in VBS2 on that same location and that same scenario, they had a better picture of how to properly react, and properly react they did: they fought off the ambush and escaped intact.
So in general i'd say VBS2 primarily adds a whole lot of functions that ArmA 2 doesnt have, yet the basics of moving around are far more advanced in ArmA 2.
They even had to add stepping over fences in a patch to VBS2, while we had that ability for a while in ArmA 2, yet they still have to stop to reload, change stance etc.
It's less important for them though i guess, because for them it isnt about a smooth game experience but about proper tactics and training, while it is all about fun for us and we require a smoother experience.
That being said, i dont at all think ArmA 2's movement is clunky.
I can do exactly what i want to do, when i want to do it.
CQB is a lot more troublesome though and on this i have to agree, and i would like BIS to move onto a new engine because this one is made primarily for open ground warfare.
However i'd say the biggest problem in CQB is the AI and it's slow reaction times in close proximity (mainly turn speeds), and not the actual moving around yourself. AI was primarily designed to fight on open ground, and that is why they perform badly in alleyways but are dangerous when crossing an open section in a city like a big town square, or fighting in the woods.
ArmA 2's main advantage in movement is that you can lock most actions by double tapping. I can easily toggle between running and walking, and even toggle on or off leaning to both sides so that i have one less button to press while moving around a corner.
+ when you have a TrackIR system, you can even look around when you are looking over your ironsights or aimpoint.
Also, i have to say, having played VBS2 it isn't that much more of a complete package compared to ArmA 2, except for the training tools like replay function which was impressive.
But when it comes to, for example, movement systems, ArmA 2 is much, much better because VBS2 still runs on ArmA 1-style engine (meaning that in VBS2 you still do have to stop to reload, you cant change stance while moving, etc.)
Next to the AAR functions VBS2 offers (with even visible bullets looking like lasers to make them stand out and let the people see where their rounds went), it offers some additional stuff like being able to build roadblocks (which isnt interesting to most people, but if it is it could be added via mods too), and small other stuff like that (though i cant claim to have seen ALL that VBS2 can do, this is just from personal experience and some promo-video's for VBS2 that i remember having seen).
Most impressive though is VBS2's ability to load a satmap and generate an ingame map off of it. Though highly basic in initial form, it allows for exact replica's of actual situations.
I remember a story one lieutenant told me about, where they had a squad of soldiers training in VBS2 right before they shipped off to Afghanistan.
They had an exact replica of the area they were going to in VBS2, and they practised ambushes in various locations.
Well, during their deployment in Afghanistan one of the situations they trained for actually happened on the exact location they had trained in in VBS2
Because they had some practise in VBS2 on that same location and that same scenario, they had a better picture of how to properly react, and properly react they did: they fought off the ambush and escaped intact.
So in general i'd say VBS2 primarily adds a whole lot of functions that ArmA 2 doesnt have, yet the basics of moving around are far more advanced in ArmA 2.
They even had to add stepping over fences in a patch to VBS2, while we had that ability for a while in ArmA 2, yet they still have to stop to reload, change stance etc.
It's less important for them though i guess, because for them it isnt about a smooth game experience but about proper tactics and training, while it is all about fun for us and we require a smoother experience.
That being said, i dont at all think ArmA 2's movement is clunky.
I can do exactly what i want to do, when i want to do it.
CQB is a lot more troublesome though and on this i have to agree, and i would like BIS to move onto a new engine because this one is made primarily for open ground warfare.
However i'd say the biggest problem in CQB is the AI and it's slow reaction times in close proximity (mainly turn speeds), and not the actual moving around yourself. AI was primarily designed to fight on open ground, and that is why they perform badly in alleyways but are dangerous when crossing an open section in a city like a big town square, or fighting in the woods.
ArmA 2's main advantage in movement is that you can lock most actions by double tapping. I can easily toggle between running and walking, and even toggle on or off leaning to both sides so that i have one less button to press while moving around a corner.
+ when you have a TrackIR system, you can even look around when you are looking over your ironsights or aimpoint.
Last edited:
