Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by brumgrunt, 17 Aug 2012.
I can just see the amount of idiots who buy this game because they think it will be like BF3 or COD and then realise it's not what they expected and demand a refund lolz
Looking forward to this a LOT. Shame it keeps getting delayed, though . If it was on it's original release schedule, it would be out around now, if not already. Still, I'm willing to wait, as long as it's for a good reason.
I've always looked at the Arma series as the dumbed down consumer (or consolified) version of the VBS (Virtual Battlespace) series of military training simulators. Even then, COD it ain't!
Versions of VBS are used to train soldiers in squad tactics and procedure training, and because it is so easily modded it can be used for mission preparation. It is used by the US Army, USMC, UK MoD, AustDF, NZDF, CanForces, SingAF, IsrDF, amongst many others. Including security/law enforcement services.
Arma games develop on the forward edge of game technology and works out the kinks in the engine. Then it is turned into VBS. The Arma series is probably as close to realism while still being commercially palatable to mainstream audiences.
OK - please don't shoot me down in flames. Long time fan of Crysis/far cry/CAD/MW/Return to Castle Wolfenstein etc.
I've just started playing Battlefield SINGLEPLAYER and so far, so good. I've never been into online gaming, but am getting more and more intrigued by it, especially as there hasn;t, in my opinion, been a truly decent single player fps in years - I'd probably go back to the original Crysis, or even F.E.A.R.
Now that I've set the scene, my guess without reading around too much, is that the Arma series are completely based around multiplayer co-op. Does the Arma series come with a single player mode to get you into the game?
I've always been put off by the imbalance of players who clearly life their lives online playing these games - you know the sort. You load up the game walk three paces and find yourself re-spawning because some 13 year old has just head shot you with a bazooka.
I tied americas army many yeasr ago, again, single player, and that was ok - just a bit slow. Is this the sort of approach to gameplay I can expect from the Arma series or is it closer to Battlefield, or does it have the "size" and "freedom" that Crysis offers.
Tattysnuc - Yes, there is a single player mode, as well as several 'Boot Camp' tutorial missions, though many people say they're not very good. I personally found the best way to get into the game was to set up lots of small missions putting me in different situations, and go from there. I actually spend most of my time in singleplayer, though again some people really don't like it.
I haven't player America's Army, so I can't compare, but Arma's singeplayer (and gameplay in general, really) could be described as 'slow'. However, that sounds like a negative description. 'Realistic' would be a better word.
Also, as size and freedom go, Arma offers somewhat more of those than Crysis.
Hope this helps
It's like 5 different games rolled in to one, and some of it is totally horrible, some of it is better than you can get anywhere else.
The problem with Arma2 is that it's extremely unwelcoming, and the demo makes this even worse. All the people who give it a quick shot and see it run like crap on their computer and it feels weird or whatever, they just quit and never come back. It's a shame because the game is amazing and you can get it work great but it takes some time and effort to get there, something which not many people can be bothered to do, or know is even possible. And that's not me criticising the people, it's totally Bohemia Interactive's fault for doing such a bad job at this stuff. But that doesn't take away the fact that if you stick with it and uncover the good stuff, it's really mindblowingly good..
My PC is a bit weaker than the one listed above, and I can almost crank the game and get great frame rates and it's stunning looking. At times I think it looks better than BF3. But you have to do the right stuff to get to that point.
It's nothing like Battlefield and a million miles away from Crysis. There are lots of different game modes and some like Deathmatch which will play similar to those other games, but they aren't what Arma2 was really designed to do and you would be better off playing BF3 for that kind of thing and Arma2's version of that stuff is a bit plain and not really in its comfort zone.
What Arma2 is all about though, is gigantic scale combat. It's a simulation so you don't just respawn and then run in to battle. You start off at HQ and have to travel maybe 20 miles to where you need to be. You could go on foot but it could take hours, but there is a whole range of vehicles and aircraft. In multiplayer you sometimes rely on other people too. Maybe you will get in a tank and then you can call for someone in a chopper to come and airlift you closer to where you need to be. Maybe you will want to be in the chopper. You can even do both in some modes and you just jump out the tank, climb in the chopper, and airlift your own tank to where you want to be. There are also helicopter gunships and jets and tons of other vehicles.
There is even more to it than that, for example you can control entire squads or armies yourself, even in multiplayer with a hundred other people, and they too might have their own armies... battalions of tanks or whatever else. There's also a bit of construction too, in some modes there is a commander who builds an entire base and it's really interesting how that works. And other people if you buy certain vehicles you can construct things like gun emplacements or machine gun nests or Anti Air tripods, sandbags, or whatever else. There really is no other game that even comes close to what Arma2 can do.
The single player in Arma2 is pretty worthless. If you were determined enough to struggle your way through with it, you will get an ok-ish example of some of the game's features. But really, many people blame the campaign for scaring off countless people who would have otherwise become big fans - just because they assumed that if the single player is bad, then the multiplayer surely can't be that great either. Unlike most other games, the multiplayer really is about 1000 times better.
You can however do various tutorials and one off singleplayer scenario missions to learn the game, before you delve in to the multiplayer.
The ones in this article are strangely meh. But I think the graphics are mind blowingly amazing. Check out some of these:
Thanks guys. Either way I look at it, it looks like the sort of game you have to invest a lot of time in playing it? Is that true?
Well, I was able to enjoy playing Arma 2 after not long at all, but if you want to really get the most from these games, then yes, you have to invest a lot of time in playing them. I would say the investment is well worth it, though of course I can't speak for everyone.
I'll probably pick this up (if available on the cheap), play it for a bit and then it will remain untouched on my HDD until removed to free up space. During the install, tweaking settings and loading I'll be gleefully looking forward to playing something which is brutally unforgiving and requires you to actually think a bit to even make the slightest bit of progress. An hour or so later, I'll think "hey, this going pretty well, I got this" cue bf3 style play, BANG! Face down in in the dirt with a massive hole where my face was. I really really want to get along with mil Sims, but am far too fidgety and impatient.
There becomes a point, if you can overcome the irritating start, where it becomes as fun and simple as BF3, but with masses more depth. It's just a bit of a challenge to reach that point
It's the same for the time invested question, I would say it takes quite some time to get to grips with it, and then even more time to get good at it, but once you are at that point it becomes a pick up and play game which you can just enjoy for an hour or whatever.
I should clarify something else as well, I think Arma2 itself is pretty good but that's not really what I play. There is an expansion pack called Operation Arrowhead and that is mostly what I play. The graphics are far nicer, far smoother, and I just like it far more. There are not that many games I really love these days, and Arma2 is one of the few. So excited for Arma3!
Unless you've got multiplayer pals and a willingness to pick up rudimentary mission editing skills then the Arma series is a dead loss and a waste of time. But if you've got those things then you'll have an amazing time with the games. And it doesn't just end with being able to make little missions for a few mates. For example I joined a clan a couple of years back which has twice weekly games doing sixty player co-op missions, with custom units, learned tactics, an in game communication set up, the works.
Arma is a long way ahead of the curve, and it's pushing hard to get further ahead.
But it's not for everybody. That's no disrespect to those who won't get anything out of it, it does demand a lot from players and at launch it'll probably be about as well optimised as a panda.
It's more of a simulator than an action fps game. So you need to think about your action and be very strategic than run & gun cos in this case you'd die straight away lol
Separate names with a comma.