ARMA2. The only real FPS out there.

[Waylay00]

Armed Assault is a very fun game when played with the correct attitude. Don't expect it to be like the fast-paced, actions games like CoD4 or Counter-Strike. ArmA basically just a combat simulator, just as a flight simulator simulates flight. I don't know of many simulators that don't have steep learning curves. Sure, there might not always be instant action, but that's the point. It gives you time to plan your attacks and execute missions realistically. And as pretentious as it sounds, these games are not for the masses, simply because most people prefer those fast-paced, instant-satisfaction games. That's fine, but ArmA is a different beast. Just because a game doesn't have a huge fan base doesn't mean it's a bad game, or vice versa. Just look at some of the best movies of all time. Many of them are only played in little arthouse theaters. And then you have some of the worst, mass-appeal movies that rake in box-office records.

I'll admit, I gave up on the first ArmA versions because of the bugs. However, I went back to it with the latest patch, and I must say that the game is amazing now. I can't expect less of ArmA 2.

If simulators aren't your bag, then it's probably not for you. Even having said that, I still think there is plenty of fun to be had for the casual player coming from games like CoD4 and vanilla BF2, especially if you're into military gear.

 

[TehMac]

I'm into military gear and weapons, definitely, and I think ArmA 2 has the potential to be more fun.

Also, if everyone skips to the second part of the first video in my above links, they'll see that ArmA 2 looks pretty incredible, if that footage is any indicator.

 

[imported_Imp]

Originally posted by: Waylay00
Armed Assault is a very fun game when played with the correct attitude. Don't expect it to be like the fast-paced, actions games like CoD4 or Counter-Strike. ArmA basically just a combat simulator, just as a flight simulator simulates flight. I don't know of many simulators that don't have steep learning curves. Sure, there might not always be instant action, but that's the point. It gives you time to plan your attacks and execute missions realistically. And as pretentious as it sounds, these games are not for the masses, simply because most people prefer those fast-paced, instant-satisfaction games. That's fine, but ArmA is a different beast. Just because a game doesn't have a huge fan base doesn't mean it's a bad game, or vice versa. Just look at some of the best movies of all time. Many of them are only played in little arthouse theaters. And then you have some of the worst, mass-appeal movies that rake in box-office records.

I'll admit, I gave up on the first ArmA versions because of the bugs. However, I went back to it with the latest patch, and I must say that the game is amazing now. I can't expect less of ArmA 2.

If simulators aren't your bag, then it's probably not for you. Even having said that, I still think there is plenty of fun to be had for the casual player coming from games like CoD4 and vanilla BF2, especially if you're into military gear.

I've seen this arguement a lot, and use to support it being an Operation Flashpoint back-up fanboy. However, the main issue here is that these games are mainly infantry/people simulators (let's ignore the more simplified flight/armor aspects for a sec). There is no reason for shitty, clunky/laggy controls. In a tank, flight or ship simulator, you are controlling a huge machine with justifiable and inherent querks.

The human body is a pretty damn, fine 'machine' and being able to easilly perform simple acrobatics like running and jumping shouldn't be hard at all. Let's not even mention that you are controlling a physically fit soldier, drilled into handling all the equipment. I'm not asking for rocket jumps and Quake/Doom moves, but how can you not clear a 1 meter fence or get stuck on a 1 foot hop; BMQ/basic should have conditioned you for at least the second one. What they've done is program the game like you're Eddie Murphy (didn't actually watch that movie) controlling a human from inside, like a machine.

What they should do is use Rainbow 6 style movement (standard FPS) and just gimp your speed/accurracy when tired or hurt. It took me the whole SP campaign plus 10-15 hours more in MP to get used to movement in Arma. This coming from someone who played Op.Flash to death. Even then, it was still noticably clunky. People can get into Rainbow games pretty easilly, and I'd say that's realistic enough. At some point, you have to draw the line between shitty controls and 'simulation': they crossed it.

Edit: Addition... Or maybe it's cause very few of us have ever flown real jets and driven real tanks. They can fool us there, but when you control your own meat bag 24/7, you know what should and shouldn't be.

 

[TehMac]

Yes, I agree with Imp, I don't like the fucking clunky ass controls. That was the problem. I want your standard WASD, and so forth, everything else is fine.

 

[Coldkilla]

If you get shot in the leg, you damn well fall to the ground period. This 'Rainbow 6' crap. When you run, you slow down. When you are out of breath, you have a hard time aiming until you catch it again.


Its a serious game for serous gamers. If you don't like it, go play your 'Please deposit here .25 cent games.'. The game may have left a few features out, but (imo) did the best job they could in terms of how to best control your player.

How else are you supposed to tell the 25 AI you control: Look to the left, scan the horizon, kneel down, hold fire, you guys go set satchels on the road, the rest of you take cover by the trees and await my orders to fire".

I have no damn idea how anyone can take this serious game to such extents as: "I just want WASD simplicity." - because thats just not going to happen.

I'll admit Arma wasn't as fluid as OFP, but its a step in the right direction.

 

[Inspector Jihad]

i wish i was a serious gamer

 

[minmaster]

this is the way i see it: good multiplayer FPS games are dependent on the community of gamers behind it. now, to achieve this, a game needs to strike the middle of realism and non-realism (meaning arcadish, noob friendly, not hard to figure out). no matter how good a game is and how realistic it claims to be, if someone tries it out and finds barely anyone playing the game and the gameplay too unforgiving and "realistic" to enjoy, nobody is going to stick around. when nobody sticks around, the servers are sparsely populated, if at all and who wants to buy a multiplayer FPS game when there's barely anyone to play with? if the hardcore realism of ARMA is its main selling point, then it's just not going to achieve the same popularity as a game like the battlefield series. battlefield series while dumbed down when it comes to simulation of tanks and aircraft, allows people to jump in and learn quickly with ease. if they made it so that it's complicated as the those flight simulators where you need to press a bunch of keys in sequence just to take off, then it won't be popular, period. the problem with the ARMA series is that it had its chance to make an impression on gamers a while back when gamers were getting sick of BF2 and it failed miserably. it made the mistake of releasing a buggy as hell game that ruined the whole future of its franchise because people who tried the game back then know the game simply didn't "play" as advertised. they're highly unlikely to fall for same trick with ARMA2, whether it's been improved or not.

 

[Waylay00]

Originally posted by: TehMac
Yes, I agree with Imp, I don't like the fucking clunky ass controls. That was the problem. I want your standard WASD, and so forth, everything else is fine.

ArmA uses the standard WASD controls. I don't really find the controls any clunkier than a game like BF2 (save the menu system).

ArmA's main failure was the release of an overly buggy first version. I left and didn't come back. It just happened to be that a friend convinced me to play this summer, and with the newest patch, it's a WHOLE lot better.

 

[TehMac]

From what I recall of the demo, I had a hard time using the iron sights and moving forward. Every key was mapped differently, it was rather irritating.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Inspector Jihad
i wish i was a serious gamer

Me too. I guess you and I will just have to play TF2.

 

[Coldkilla]

Wait, was someone just saying that Arma is not a community driven game? Because it is, in fact, community driven.

Arma 1.0 was horrible and unfinished, the company that made it even said so. They were essentially forced to release an unfinished game, they aren't your big company with millions on the side - these guys are a small group of around 30 people living off an income raised 6 years before. They had to release Arma in its 1.0 state. However over time, they had received the funds after the release to 'finish' the game. Now with the latest patch its a whole different game. Arma2 wont disappoint.

 

[450R]

You make me not want to play ArmA, Coldkilla. You have a chip on your shoulder the size of Sahrani and throw around (wrong) information like it's gospel. And putting people down for liking anything other than ultra-realistic war simulators...? You aren't doing BI, ArmA or the community any favors here.

1, Disembark from High Horse.

 

[clamum]

Hahaha, as if games like Team Fortress 2 don't require thinking (to be good at).

I played the demo when it first came out and thought it was complete shit, I may give this one another go.

 

[Coldkilla]

Originally posted by: 450R
You make me not want to play ArmA, Coldkilla. You have a chip on your shoulder the size of Sahrani and throw around (wrong) information like it's gospel. And putting people down for liking anything other than ultra-realistic war simulators...? You aren't doing BI, ArmA or the community any favors here.

1, Disembark from High Horse.

Huh? I'm asking people to clarify their positions on the game from using general terms such as 'clunky' and the like. I argue that the controls would be difficult to change and I then am faced with asking the person 'why' they feel its clunky and what they would do to change it. So by questioning someones broad point by asking them to clarify their position is "high horsing".. then I guess I am doing it.

 

[TehMac]

Originally posted by: 450R
You make me not want to play ArmA, Coldkilla. You have a chip on your shoulder the size of Sahrani and throw around (wrong) information like it's gospel. And putting people down for liking anything other than ultra-realistic war simulators...? You aren't doing BI, ArmA or the community any favors here.

1, Disembark from High Horse.

I think you may be taking it the wrong way, mate. Coldkilla is very aggressive, sure, I find myself in the same sort of disposition at times, but I think is position is valid.

Especially considering he has qualified his position several times now.

 

[450R]

"Clunky" is a term I've used to describe ArmA's movement system. Personally, what that means to me is that the game is slow to react to my inputs and is very imprecise in how my actions are represented on-screen. I know the developers tried to incorporate some realism into movement, but it's overkill and unnecessary in my opinion. It just widens the disconnect between game and reality and creates extra work/management for the player. It should be more transparent - it's not a walking simulation. The animation system is another huge pain in the ass, and that might account for some of the "clunky" grief.

Edit: From the very limited previews I've seen of ArmA 2, I know the animation system is being worked on and that's good news. Whether that addresses the general "clunkiness" is still up in the air.

 

[TehMac]

Originally posted by: 450R
"Clunky" is a term I've used to describe ArmA's movement system. Personally, what that means to me is that the game is slow to react to my inputs and is very imprecise in how my actions are represented on-screen. I know the developers tried to incorporate some realism into movement, but it's overkill and unnecessary in my opinion. It just widens the disconnect between game and reality and creates extra work/management for the player. It should be more transparent - it's not a walking simulation. The animation system is another huge pain in the ass, and that might account for some of the "clunky" grief.

Edit: From the very limited previews I've seen of ArmA 2, I know the animation system is being worked on and that's good news. Whether that addresses the general "clunkiness" is still up in the air.

I know exactly what you mean, and I have to say, that when I played ARMA's demo, the same sort of sensation of clunkiness was apparent. I also felt the same way when playing the BF2142 beta and demo.

The animations weren't polished as much as games like BF2 or CoD4, although their gameplay aspects are a bit under developed.

I hope ARMA2 turns out brilliant, from what I've seen it looks great, but there's always past experiences and such that might tug at us and let us think otherwise.