Gaming Arma II: Operation Arrowhead Review

More guns, more tanks, more aircraft, more maps and more things to kill for Arma II.

http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/pc/2010/06/29/arma-ii-operation-arrowhead-review/1

 

I just couldn't get on with the the original ARMA 2, i got it on release date and was looking forward to it, but it was swimming in bugs and was pretty unplayable.

 

Better bug wise? Also isn't there a guy with 3xgtxs here ? Can that realy not play. It?

 

Deserves a 9 rating. We need more Sims like this in the Pc Gamer™ quiver.

 

Arrowhead in short is ARMA II with a crap load of mods installed for you already. Pretty much everything the article claims to be new has already been a part of ARMA II.

On the technical side of things. Nobody will play Arrowhead on Max settings since its a waste to have it run that way. You can custom the settings so you have it maxed out depending on what you want to do in the game. If you are flying about, crank up the distance to 5km and adjust some features to high or very high if you have a nice card. If you are on the ground, set the view distance to 3km and jump the better features to very high. In the long run, the game is beautiful the way it is on normal settings anyways so its not that big of a deal.

As to bugs. Bohemia has pretty much optimized ARMA II to a complete game with their latest patch of 1.07. I'm awaiting my copy of Arrowhead in the mail but I'm pretty confident it will run with minimal bugs. The only thing I'm certain that will piss me of is a well camouflaged enemy Spec Op lying in wait that will most certainly kill me without firing more than 5 rounds.

Bit-Tech didn't really do a fair review of the game. To newcomers, I suggest you read Bit-Tech's original review of ARMA II as its more on track.

 

"But can it run Arma II: Operation Arrowhead Review?" doesn't have quite the same ring to it as "But can it run Crysis?"

 

Been waiting for this for ages, and will definitely be getting it... As soon as I've replaced my PSU that popped recently

I remember how bugged the first version of ARMA 2 was when at one point in the campaign, half of your squad would be killed during the intro-cut-scene of that mission. So you're standing there listening to the mission brief while being attacked and watching your squad die in front of you and unable to do anything about it till the briefing finished... Half the time you would also get shot during this moment!!

Obviously the campaign was over from here on as it was impossible to actually progress beyond that point

Still, saying that, I couldn't agree more with the review that suggests the campaign is more an intro to what the game really offers.

On-line, playing the Hold Location game type plays just like BF2, and similar titles but with a level of realism and immersion that nothing else comes close to.

Going back to the likes of BF2, or MW2 just feels so shallow and boring that I always end up back in ARMA2.

For example, being able to take out the tyres of a HMMV carrying a bunch of enemy soldiers half-way across an open field then watching them bail out and try running for cover while you pick them off from a mile away is just awesome.

It's also the only FPS where camping doesn't bother people as it's so realistic that to snipe effectively is actually really hard, as I imagine it is in RL. Snipers have to account for bullet drop, and range, while choosing their shots as once you give your position away, it's pretty much over.

To sum it up, the level of realism allows the player to use his imagination, and common sense to play to his/her style.

You also find yourself using the terrain and the map to plan your approach as in RL. Tactics like flanking, diversions, and air support REALLY work!

One thing that can't be guaranteed is protection from idiots. You know the type, people who insist on taking the pilot seat yet can't actually fly, or those that don't check their targets (PRESS SPACE BAR OVER POTENTIAL TARGETS... OR JUST LOOK AT YOUR MAP!!) before laying waste to half their team who've just spent the last 15 mins getting into position only to have to do it all over again.

Still, these niggles aren't the game's fault imo, and just add to the experience as it sort of fosters an environment of cooperation amongst the rest; you can actually find plenty of players who carry out their roles properly. Like snipers who choose their positions based on the positions of the rest of their team, therefore being able to provide real cover, or tank crews that hold high positions and resist giving their position away by firing on infantry in order to defend against enemy armour, or pilots who focus on ferrying people to and from spawn points and hot-spots. When this happens, this game's on a whole new level of its own.

I just hope they've fixed the ridiculous HDR in night vision mode. Useless if there's so much as a camp fire in your line of sight as the HDR over-compensates and makes the view so dark you can't see anything.

 

Not sure if SLI, or Crossfire is actually supported as they weren't initially. Maybe the subsequent patches and updates allowed this?

Does anyone know for sure?

 

In what way wasn't the review fair? We explored and listed the new features and new maps while making gamers unfamiliar with Arma II aware of the limitations (buggy AI, poorly scripted campaign) and brutal hardware requirements. Yet, despite all that we gave it a score of 8 and a Recommended Award.

You can hack the ini files to work with 2-card SLI, but it doesn't get any faster with 3-way SLI or Quad SLI. On the ATI side of things, I'm not sure how well it responds to CrossFire.

 

You can't ask someone to review fairly and say they are wrong about bugs if you haven't even got the game yet...

On topic... I've always wanted to try a milsim maybe I'll get this and see how it goes

 

Would have liked to have seen some performance figures (I know you save that sort of thing to hardware reviews) but as you said it performs around the same as ArmA II so I presume you used the same rig to test it on.

 

Yes, I reviewed it on my main gaming rig at home, which is the same as the one I used to review Arma II on.

 

"In what way wasn't the review fair? We explored and listed the new features and new maps while making gamers unfamiliar with Arma II aware of the limitations (buggy AI, poorly scripted campaign) and brutal hardware requirements. Yet, despite all that we gave it a score of 8 and a Recommended Award."

Well for starters, you left out the good stuff. The game is MP and that was hardly if at all talked about which wouldn't happen if this was MW3. There was no performance charts to base on, just your word that it will crush your hardware. Which isn't entirely true. I've been playing MP with people still using 8800 and Dual core CPUs on ARMA II on a regular basis and they are able to keep up while still keeping most of the eye candy. ARMA II is most definitely going to tax your hardware more than Operation Arrowhead since there is far more of a lush environment to account for than just a barren land with some trees and rocks.

Score really doesn't mean anything in your review if you forgot to include important details.

"You can't ask someone to review fairly and say they are wrong about bugs if you haven't even got the game yet..."

So is it fair to say COD4 and MW2 was drastically different? I never bought MW2 but its essentially the same game with a few things added.

 

It is I'm sure its a pain to review games on different hardware platforms but I do often wonder how bit-tech means to differenciate its reviews from other publications.

I do like the reviews though, well written etc... just not so different from other review sites... having said that you do review games that other sites miss... so I'm probably just typing tripe.

btw what is your home rig?

 

Until the Southbridge flaked out over the weekend in the heatwave it comprised a Core i7-975 overclocked to 3.86GHz and an overlocked GeForce GTX 285, both water-cooled.

 

With regards to performance figures and Arma 2 this is something of a dark art. I've been playing Arma 2 a couple of times a week with my clan since it came out and even I have only just about got a handle on what needs to be done to what setting to get an optimal visuals and frames per second balance. Some settings will break you if you turn them up past Normal, others can sit happily at Very High. It's kind of ironic that if Arma 2 simply capped it's own settings much lower it would still get the plaudits for looking amazing yet it wouldn't get the criticism for being such a relentless system emasculator.

 

Then what's the point of having more than one review site if you want them all to be the same?

 

I don't think he does want them to be the same, I think he wants them to be different. Isn't that what he's saying?

Can we have some sensible minimum system specs please, I'm about to buy a complete new machine and I'm interested in this.

 

There are a load of graphics options you can tweak to match your spec, but the most important thing to know about Arma II is that unlike most games, the CPU and GPU are both very important. What were you thinking of buying?

 

How can this be called a mil sim if AI is as stupid as a rock. I really can't get into this game with the stupid AI and the robotic voices