Just came back from Arma II OA.
- Thread starter Poerisija
- Start date
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.
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.
I've played ArmA mostly on TG servers, with a lot of organization so I've seen the best that it has to offer. The engine is really nice, probably the best there is for a military shooter. But, there's a lot of glaring weaknesses and holes in the game.
I've played on the pvp servers and they're horrendous. Outside of events like Charlie Foxtrot, there really isn't much to see.
Who said I didn't know this? I know all about the SimHQ and Tactical Gamer events, along with ones at other communities, they're great. These guys do a great job of running these things like real military ops, that's very intriguing to me. But, the AI is so dreadful that it completely ruins any sense of immersion.
ArmA 2 is the most realistic shooter by default. There really aren't many developers who even attempt to create a "simulation". A term I have to use loosely when talking about FPS anyway.
If we're talking military games in general there are a ton of games that do a far better job of simulating their unique domain than ArmA 2.
Steel Beasts Pro PE comes to mind, Tacops 4, Decisive Action, Point of Attack 2, DCS Black Shark, DCS A-10, etc. All of those games would score higher on the simulation chart than ArmA 2. More important, IMO at least, is that the multiplayer and immersion is far superior on all of those titles as well.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy ArmA. I own it and I play it a lot, i just don't think it's everything some people make it out to be.
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.
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.
I agree with that.
The thing about bigger maps in RO2 comes down to the Unreal Engine. I don't know how true this is, but Americas Army uses the Unreal engine as well, and the developers have stated that the engine limits them to only being able to create small maps. Again, I'm not sure if that's a fact or whether the engine has changed in that regard, but I do remember AA blaming the engine on their small CQB based maps.
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.
---
I never claimed to be a Arma vet I agree it is more of a sim than RO but it doesn't exactly have 1 shot kills or realistic gun recoil either so realism is debatable.I just never got past the horrid controls to do much pvp.Like I said I mainly made single player missions in the editor and, the way I designed them they was almost impossible on hard difficulty.With random spotters calling in arty and tanks set to triggers I had more fun making them than playing it.The game had a incredible editor allowing some really good custom scripting and event triggers.(as for spotting support fire it was almost too good
)Not sure why we are even debating the 2 games their about the only tactical realism games we have and they both have different goals.Their is things I like and dislike about both games.Gameplay wise I just prefer RO I just could never get past the clunky controls for Arma.Both are good in their own right and we all have the right to our choice.
Last edited:
Red Orchestra isn't a combat simulator. It's a tactical shooter. Or at least RO ost is.
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.
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.
Last edited:
Exactly.
The maps isn't even the real problem. It's the gamemechanics. If those maps were modded to ro ost we all know a lot of the existing problems would be solved and the gameplay would change drastically.
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.
Exactly. People play a game in whatever manner gives them the best success and the most fun. The current game environment (small maps, no inertia and fast movment) rewards the RNG twitch shooter. The game has potential to be so much more. Bigger maps and slightly slower weapon handling (weapon switching/ADS) would reward a more team oriented player who is a bit more thoughtful in their actions.
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.
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 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.
You should download an addon manager. There is one with it's own database that keeps everything up to date, but I can't recall the name of it at the moment.
Probably its because of FOV... lately I've done a test with Cliffs of Dover about "real visibility" vs "in game visibility".
REAL VISIBILITY (39,6 FOV)
SIM VISIBILITY (70 FOV)
Probably its the same issue...
