Tried ARMA II today...

[Cyper]

Can honestly say I didn't enjoy it.
Everything about it seems clunky; controls felt like they are all over the place the gameplay didn't feel very realistic. I feel like actions such as running are exaggerated to make up for the lack of realism in other aspects instead of having a medium or standard level of realism.
I actually felt nauseous after running around for a few minutes like I was reading a book in a moving car; the camera went all over the place and made it seem like my eyes were actually looking through my avatar's chest.

TBH, I'm kind of surprised since it gets compared to RO2 here quite often. It didn't feel nearly as refined as RO2, so I'm confused as to why it gets so much praise. Am I missing something? I played ARMA II Free specifically.

True, it's not realistic, because it's a game. Unfortunately, there is no other game that does what arma does better, e.i being the most realistic videogame out there at the moment. Because there is no other game that reaches arma 2's level of realism.

I gave it a good hour trying to figure out the controls. Most new games I can usually get a good a idea and say "Oh, this make sense", but in ARMA it just felt unnecessary and abnormal.

Arma 2 controls is not the best. But before we say it's bad I'd like to see another videogame incorporate all these different commands with lack of learning curve. Because its not up to debate to REMOVE any of the controls and replace them with a console command radial. The controls are quite simple, actually. Press

 

[RiccardoTheBeAst]

Can honestly say I didn't enjoy it.
Everything about it seems clunky; controls felt like they are all over the place the gameplay didn't feel very realistic. I feel like actions such as running are exaggerated to make up for the lack of realism in other aspects instead of having a medium or standard level of realism.
I actually felt nauseous after running around for a few minutes like I was reading a book in a moving car; the camera went all over the place and made it seem like my eyes were actually looking through my avatar's chest.

TBH, I'm kind of surprised since it gets compared to RO2 here quite often. It didn't feel nearly as refined as RO2, so I'm confused as to why it gets so much praise. Am I missing something? I played ARMA II Free specifically.

ArmA II in fact isn't anything special, it becomes nice with Operation Arrowhead that adds a lot of new features/fixes/improvements to the standard ArmA II (this generates the Combined Operation), but anyway do not expect to adjust the weapons as in the reality, or to drive a tank as in Steel Beasts or to fly a plane as in LOMAC

Anyway, the CO is enjoyable, but the TOTAL absence of a good multiplayer make it useless since playing against the AI means getting shot with a pistol in the head from 500m while you're prone in the grass with the best camo-suite available in the world simply because the AI sucks and it's unsuitable for a realistic game (reason for why Twi shouldn't have lost time on the singleplayer and the AI for RO2, but should have worked on more realism, more vehicles and maps instead).

 

[LightsabeR]

Watch this:

ShackTac - Moonlit Granate - YouTube

 

[Neuromante]

ARMA II takes a while to get into, base game is ****e too. Play with friends btw! The controls and gear system are kind of awkward at first but you get used to that too, took me ages to get into it. I don't know if it was already said, I just read the OP but you can turn off your head bob, along with doing other options too.

It was and kind of still is a fun enjoyable game from it's day. A lot of user hud, server side, client side changed along with TC mods like I44, ACE, and all make the game more open too.

This.

The only similarities between ArmA2 and RO is that they are both military shooters with a ballistics system. Anything else doesn't apply, and comparisons drawn in this forum almost always show ignorance on part of the poster.

ArmA2's killer features are the massive maps and its open nature, allowing for users to create their own missions, gamemodes or what have you. It also has a decent (by comparison) artificial intelligence that allows for massive missions to play out with one or just a handful of human players. I understand completely complaints about clunkyness or lack of decent pub gamemodes. My advice would be stick to it, learn to work past the hurdles.. and if you're trying to play it with randoms, you're doing it wrong.

Forlorn Hope - YouTube

Oh, and the campaign is actually very decent, you might want to play it with a few friends in coop.

 

[Cyper]

[...]playing against the AI means getting shot with a pistol in the head from 500m while you're prone in the grass with the best camo-suite available in the world simply because the AI sucks and it's unsuitable for a realistic game (reason for why Twi shouldn't have lost time on the singleplayer and the AI for RO2, but should have worked on more realism, more vehicles and maps instead).

This is not true.

1. AI wont engage you from 500 meters unless you're using any AI mod.

2. The effective range for the M9 pistol is roughly 50 meters.

If the AI hit you in the head from 500 meters then you're just very, very unlucky. If it do happen it is likely that you will survive - not die.

Even 250meters is a quite hard one. Most pistol bullets that hit from that distance wont be deadly.

If you're in the grass, prone, or behind any bush it is even more unlikely that the AI will manage to hit you. Truth is that the AI engagement range is not long enough in Arma 2; because the player can engage enemy AI from over 500 meters away, so its very logical that the AI should be able to do so.

Arma 2 AI is really good - because it's not scripted - which is also a flaw because things can easily get wrong. It's a double edged sword.

When you fire at the AI in arma 2 they They assess situation and it does not automatically know where you are. Despite the fact that the engagement distance is too short, it is far more realistic than in any other game. Grass,bushes, trees, smoke, fog, and dark conceal you in arma 2 because AI can't see through it. The AI will also listen for footsteps. Run behind their back and they will hear you. If they see a glimpse at you behind a bush, they will fire at your last known location, they wont magically know your actions. The AI may also retreat if things look to bad. The AI may (without the player interfering) order units to exit/enter vehicles, to attack certain targets, to move to certain locations etc. etc. etc. There is more or less no defined paths.

 

[fiftyone]

Who compared RO with ArmA ?
I've seen critics from both camps and those that except each game for its merits but to be quite honest I do not recall anyone comparing the two !

Unless it was Lemon .

I'm probably wrong but I thought it was worth the mention.

Anyhow, as others have said already, ArmA is about the platform and the mods that make this game so interesting.

If you have a problem with the realistic aspect of the base game, I highly recommend you indulge in a few cans of

.

 

[TheRealGunther]

Arma was always a paradox for me while I really wanted to enjoy the realistic approach to the game.Small things like heavily reduced recoil on screen sights broke the realism for me.Like I said before its approach to the game is very realistic.Just some of the gameplay aspects was not for me RO had it beat with gun play.I used to use a SAW in arma and you could pretty much empty a box of ammo and your sight hardly moved.

 

[RiccardoTheBeAst]

This is not true.

1. AI wont engage you from 500 meters unless you're using any AI mod.

2. The effective range for the M9 pistol is roughly 50 meters.

If the AI hit you in the head from 500 meters then you're just very, very unlucky. If it do happen it is likely that you will survive - not die.

Even 250meters is a quite hard one. Most pistol bullets that hit from that distance wont be deadly.

If you're in the grass, prone, or behind any bush it is even more unlikely that the AI will manage to hit you. Truth is that the AI engagement range is not long enough in Arma 2; because the player can engage enemy AI from over 500 meters away, so its very logical that the AI should be able to do so.

Arma 2 AI is really good - because it's not scripted - which is also a flaw because things can easily get wrong. It's a double edged sword.

When you fire at the AI in arma 2 they They assess situation and it does not automatically know where you are. Despite the fact that the engagement distance is too short, it is far more realistic than in any other game. Grass,bushes, trees, smoke, fog, and dark conceal you in arma 2 because AI can't see through it. The AI will also listen for footsteps. Run behind their back and they will hear you. If they see a glimpse at you behind a bush, they will fire at your last known location, they wont magically know your actions. The AI may also retreat if things look to bad. The AI may (without the player interfering) order units to exit/enter vehicles, to attack certain targets, to move to certain locations etc. etc. etc. There is more or less no defined paths.

It was clearly an exaggeration ;D

Anyway the AI see me in the bushes and grass, too much easily, and unrealistically, and it's accurate also with inaccurate weapons from 300 meters or more (AKM for example)

 

[Flogger23m]

It didn't feel nearly as refined as RO2, so I'm confused as to why it gets so much praise. Am I missing something? I played ARMA II Free specifically.

That statement made me laugh. Neither games are refined. RO2 isn't realistic at all aside from some of the weapon mechanics.

ArmA does have realism. The scale and scope of the missions and map sizes map the game very realistic. It does fail on many small levels though.

As for the head movement, turn it off in the options. I turn it and free aim to the 2nd lowest setting.

What I am trying to say is: Arma 2 basically covers EVERYTHING through the modding community.

Quantity does not = quality. For example, Battlefield's helicopters are far better than ArmA 1/2s as are the tanks from a movement standpoint. Which is pathetic. ArmA 3 should improve the vehicles though they won't be simulation level.

 

[abjectblitz]

The mouse in Arma 2 feels so laggy and wrong, elastic.

Until they fix the mouse code to be 1:1 and super responsive like most other FPS games it is no go for me.

 

[Cyper]

The mouse in Arma 2 feels so laggy and wrong, elastic.

Until they fix the mouse code to be 1:1 and super responsive like most other FPS games it is no go for me.

It's not going to be like other FPS game. I wish Deadzone was forced upon everybody so people could learn to play the game properly. It shouldn't be an option; deadzone is realistic and that's a solid reason to force it upon everyone. Because I reckon that's what you're speaking about - it makes your movements feel more natural, and less like you're moving a cursor like it does in all other FPS titles. If you check options it can be disabled. Exactly like headbobing.

 

[HellsJanitor]

That statement made me laugh. Neither games are refined. RO2 isn't realistic at all aside from some of the weapon mechanics.

ArmA does have realism.

I'm having a hard time taking post that seriously.
RO2 is pretty damn realistic. In comparison to real life it may not seem so, but against other shooters out there I would put it in the top twenty.
ARMA realism, to me, is it's own realm. I couldn't find much that really blew me away as a foot soldier, it was very basic. Free-aim was limited and basic mechanics I expected more from.
The aircraft were pretty interesting, but helicopters felt on par with BF3.

RO2 definitely is more refined, by which I mean less clunky and much smoother. It may not have as many functions, but the ones it does have are detailed and fluid. ARMA has a lot going on with it, I thought, which didn't seem very necessary.

I'm not trying to bash the game if anyone here likes it, but more or less analyze it.

 

[Neuromante]

The mouse in Arma 2 feels so laggy and wrong, elastic.

Until they fix the mouse code to be 1:1 and super responsive like most other FPS games it is no go for me.

http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2782938

 

[Neuromante]

I'm having a hard time taking post that seriously.
RO2 is pretty damn realistic. In comparison to real life it may not seem so, but against other shooters out there I would put it in the top twenty.
ARMA realism, to me, is it's own realm. I couldn't find much that really blew me away as a foot soldier, it was very basic. Free-aim was limited and basic mechanics I expected more from.
The aircraft were pretty interesting, but helicopters felt on par with BF3.

RO2 definitely is more refined, by which I mean less clunky and much smoother. It may not have as many functions, but the ones it does have are detailed and fluid. ARMA has a lot going on with it, I thought, which didn't seem very necessary.

I'm not trying to bash the game if anyone here likes it, but more or less analyze it.

Get the ACE mod. Most of the talk about "ArmA2 realism" is either fluff or comes from that.

 

[Murphy]

The acceleration issue that is, among other things, responsible for having the cursor move along invisible lines if your acceleration along a certain axis causes it to stick to it, or move in little stairs, has been around since the original Operation Flashpoint. ArmA and ArmA2 added a mouse smoothing function that makes the games feel like you're moving through honey and that obfuscates the issue because you're too hung up on it feeling laggy to notice the other problem, but it's still there.

Every time you try to explain your mouse doesn't act like it should someone kindly points out to you that free-aim, a staple of the series since the original Operation Flashpoint as well, is intentional and realistic... Whether it's realistic (more realistic than no free-aim but the constant option to free-look) is a matter of some debate but I will agree it is most definitely intentional... but it has nothing to do with the mouse feeling laggy in-game.

It's been argued this is meant to simulate the weight of weapons. Also nonsense as it doesn't differentiate between a pistol and a heavy machine gun and it's also in place if you're not even dealing with a weapon. There is a maximum turn speed for very heavy weapons, however. That is intentional. And it feels intentional.

The laggy mouse and the screwed up acceleration settings are technical glitches that should have been taken care of a long time ago. And with that I don't mean months, I mean a couple of games ago.

 

[Flogger23m]

The aircraft were pretty interesting, but helicopters felt on par with BF3.

RO2 definitely is more refined, by which I mean less clunky and much smoother.

RO2 to me isn't refined due to bugs and an odd mix or realism and arcade. Aiming is very clunky. More so than ArmA 2. That be said, ArmA 2 is anything but refined as well.

As for the aircraft, ArmA 2's are hilariously terrible. Though they claim they are importing Take On Helicopter flight models into ArmA 3 and are making the ground vehicles behave better. So lets hope there is some improvement there.

Big rant.

You're stuck up on movement and weapons. Yes, ArmA 2 does lack realism and refinement in these two areas. But three is much more to making a realistic infantry game than making weapons and movement realistic.

ArmA 2 offers realistic and proper sized missions that require real world tactics to accomplish. RO on the other hand is just a realistic arena shooter. At its core, it still is an arena shooter and the "battles" that take place are very similar to that of UT and CS in nature.

This is why I refer to RO as a "realistic shooter", R6/SWAT as a "tactical shooter" and ArmA as a "infantry simulator/tactical shooter".

I'm looking forward to Takedown to see RO/INF style weapon realism in a R6/SWAT type tactical shooter.

 

[Sensemann]

Quantity does not = quality. For example, Battlefield's helicopters are far better than ArmA 1/2s as are the tanks from a movement standpoint. Which is pathetic. ArmA 3 should improve the vehicles though they won't be simulation level.

I never played Battlefield other than BF:Vietnam, so I am unable to judge.
As stated by other posters already: In my eyes, Arma's strength lies in its mods and editor. It's like an unlimited box of LEGO, you can build everything you want. That's it's strength in my eyes. It feels clunky on many parts, I agree, including vehicles.

But get a group of say 10-20 people together and have a mission build by yourself, it's just awesome. For example, you take one of the villages/cities of the map, put 100-200-1000 (whatever you want) enemies and vehicles into it, make some of the appearances a probability (like 50% chance that the enemy is spawning with tanks), and the same mission can be interesting 10 times. The simple size of the map and the options of Arma allow you to have fun on it again and again.

Stick to the same mission example I gave you: Want to suddenly change the enemy being Navy Seals while you are attacking as Waffen-SS? No problem to do so. Want to be German KSK and attack the US army? Do so. Want to switch the whole setting to insurgents fights in Afghanistan? No problem. It's all there, and the limit is your imagination.

That's the strength of Arma. Variety, size and the possible approaches/strategies within battles/skirmishes that come with it.

By no means do I want to compare Arma with RO 2. Those are completely different cup of teas. And yes, I think both games could improve if they learned a bit from each other. But that's just my opinion.

 

[Flogger23m]

The editor is indeed the strength of ArmA. Its sandbox like gameplay (WWII VS modern through mods) is also a plus. Though it isn't that impressive when the quality of the units are so low.

IMO they should bring the overall quality up a few notches and make solid base gameplay. ArmA3 seems to be going in that direction, though as for how much we'll have to wait and see. The heart of the game always was an infantry and simulator more so than making M1A2s duke it out with :IS2:s.

 

[Cyper]

I'm having a hard time taking post that seriously.
RO2 is pretty damn realistic. In comparison to real life it may not seem so, but against other shooters out there I would put it in the top twenty.
ARMA realism, to me, is it's own realm. I couldn't find much that really blew me away as a foot soldier, it was very basic. Free-aim was limited and basic mechanics I expected more from.
The aircraft were pretty interesting, but helicopters felt on par with BF3.

RO2 definitely is more refined, by which I mean less clunky and much smoother. It may not have as many functions, but the ones it does have are detailed and fluid. ARMA has a lot going on with it, I thought, which didn't seem very necessary.

I'm not trying to bash the game if anyone here likes it, but more or less analyze it.

Compared to other FPS games RO2 is indeed very realistic, but compared to a game like ARMA 2, RO2 is indeed very unrealistic.

'Refined' is a very subjective word. For most people, refined, or maybe streamlined gameplay, doesn't always go in line with realism. I don't think ARMA ever will feel streamlined.

Deadzone (ability to move your weapon without moving your body) is realistic, but is it smooth? No, it isn't. Loads of commands is realistic but is it smooth? Not neccessary, and its certainly not accessible. The animations is ARMA is realistic because it is captured from real-life animations. But is it smooth? Not really. The AI in ARMA is designed to kill you rather than you entertain you. It is realistic. But is it smooth? No, it isn't. Each map in ARMA isn't designed for this or that, e.i the maps are not streamlined for the player. Is it realistic? Yes. Is it smooth? No, it isn't.

ARMA tries to do everything, and I mean everything as realistic as possible; Bullet drop, tracer modelling, damage, (how much damage a bullet do depending on distance etc. and how much it drop for each meter), varied foliage in terrain, 10,000m drawdistance, huge maps, night/day cycle based on starscape, sunrise, sunset, lat/long, proper sea simulation, speed of sound modelling, sound occlusion...even things like accurate moon phases. Because this is what matters, its the whole purpose and idea behind arma. It can't even be compared to RO2 or indeed any other games in terms of realism. RO2 is far behind ARMA 2 in terms of realism/simulation.

Games like Battlefield does certain things very well. Destruction in BF3 is more realistic than in arma. But the difference here is that games like Battlefield only add the kind of realism that keeps the game smooth, accessible, and action oriented. They keep what 90% of all gamers call ''fun''. The rest is left out. Its one thing to do one thing well, or a few things, but a completely other thing to try to do everything well. BIS may be over ambitious with ARMA 2, but they do a very good job, and a good amount of people play their game despite the fact that it is far removed from what people expect from a modern PC game. I all I cared about was realism in RO2/OSTFRONT then I wouldn't be interested in the game at all because I would then find it in arma.

 

[BL4Z3>FAS>]

I would like to like Arma ,..it looks great but I think it goes almost too far with realism
I never could get comfortable with the control setup ,...& there are so many keys to be bound that purchasing another keyboard & playing with a key cheatsheet so I can remember what they all do, just doesnt appeal to me,...