Is ARMA 2 the most underrated game?

F

fasterthanlight

Gawd
Joined
Nov 22, 2005
Messages
677
I have to say I have been playing PC games for a long time now and I have had many favorites.

I have lost many a girlfriend to CS and CS:S. I have also spent just as much time playing BF2.

However, in the last 6 months, I have spent 450+ hours playing ARMA 2. With a good graphics card and an adjustment from Action to Simulation in my head for the game type, this has to be a combination of my 2 favorites games above. You can do SO much as far as just playing to editing and creating any kind of mission you want.

The only drawback is that this is not an MMO. It would be really cool to have the gamestyle of Planetside. Also, being able to customize your soldier with camo, dress uniforms, and weapons modifications.

What do you all think?
 
Yeah, I am an avid OFP/Arma player and must admit they really need to rebuild the engine. Animations are horrid. Still, nothing like playing the Invasion 44 mod or ACE2 with 30 other folks.
 
I love games where thinking, tactics, and strategy dominates. Regardless if this is true of Arma 2, despite trying on multiple occasions to play it online both alone and with friends over Ventrillo, every single time was very boring and/or inferior to experiences I have or have had in Battlefield: Bad Company 2, America's Army 1/2/3, and World War 2 Online. Arma 2 may be the most realistic and most tactical, but it is just too boring. World War 2 Online, which is also a "slow" game, is way more fun than Arma 2. Arma 2 just does not have gameplay mechanics implemented (as ww2o does) to have tactical gameplay while at the same time keeping it a fun *game* instead of a pure simulation (that some enjoy, I admit). Anyway, I personally don't like Arma 2 at all, and would put AA 1/2/3, Tribes 2, and WW2O as the best three FPS games I have ever played. Sorry, even BF1942, BF2, BC2, and CoD do not have anything on those three games. Unfortunately, AA 1/2 is outdated, AA3 was poorly developed, WW2O has never got the funds to make a new engine and is completely outdated graphically and in some other ways, and Tribes 2 obviously is outdated as well. So there really isn't a "superb" FPS game out there in my opinion - there hasn't been for a long time. I would call BC2 just "great."
 
I bought the combined arms pack for $30 over the holiday on steam, and I really really really tried. I beat Arma 2 singleplayer and Operation arrowhead, they get boring pretty quick. I am disappointed and feel like I could have made a purchase on a much better game. Multiplayer is very laggy (ping wise) and seems to have a massive communication breakdown.
 
ArmA is amazing.

I consider Operation Flashpoint to be my number #1 favorite game of all platforms of all time too.

I used to play ArmA with strict discipline with SimHQ guys. The level of immersion and depth is pretty unrivaled.

I made some ArmA videos of SimHQ game nights here: http://vimeo.com/user406764/videos :D

Sadly I stopped playing, but I do have ArmA 2. I should hit up the SimHQ guys once more. The only problem with ArmA is that it's an incredibly demanding game, my 480 can't keep up with 2560x1600 in some situations.


edit: I can totally understand why many could consider ArmA/ArmA2 to be "boring". It's the same thing as how many people find flight sims "boring" I suppose. Treat it as a realistic run n' gun FPS game, and you'll be bored to death. Treat it as a soldier simulator, and you'll have a rewarding blast.
 
sadly for me, I love OFP (the original one) and as much as I liked ARMA1/2 they just never had the same feel are flashpoint. to much small squad/special forces kinda stuff.
 
I thought Arma2 was rubbish, from the demo anyway. Controls are needlessly complicated and trying to remap one key pretty much screws up the entire control scheme.
 
i remember hearing that when the game came out, your AI convoy would just sit in the middle of the road, waiting for the goat/rabbit to pass. Even if in enemy gun fire.
 
I tell my medic to heal me when im lying on the ground bleeding to death, and he gets up from his prone position 10 feet away, runs way to my left about 100m, goes prone, runs on the opposite side of the gate/wall were inside of, finally comes back and looks at me. This is when I used to controls to enable 4x time. It took about 30 seconds. I finally said fuck it and switched to him then healed myself. They do this every god damned time too.
 
The AI scripts are just stupid in the game. After learning the controls of the game (took quite a while), I couldn't even get through the basic training, after trying to complete it like 4 times in a row. There's always a glitch that you have to avoid.

I ended up going into the campaign, but got only through the first few missions.

The graphics are amazing and horrid at the same time. The models and high resolution textures and breath taking, while the animations are poor and special effects look like sprites from the 90's.

Overall, it's a great game for someone that like FPSes, but has a ton of patience at the same time. Meaning very few people.
 
Arma2 shines in multiplayer. There are player driven addons that make the game more run and gun for the ADHD types. Persistent coop campaigns, pure tactical driven maps, a fantastic modding community etc.

I would recommend the ACE mod, and jump onto ACE coop server.

I would agree that Arma2 especially now with the huge improvements made with AO could be one of the, if not the most underrated FPS out at the moment.

Plus for all of the folks bitching about console ports, ArmA 2 is pure PC.
 
I was disappointed that the ARMA series never improved on OP Flash where it counts, like improved AI, better gameplay, get rid of the feeling that you're "piloting" a soldier instead of being a soldier, etc.
 
zacrobmer said:
Arma2 shines in multiplayer. There are player driven addons that make the game more run and gun for the ADHD types. Persistent coop campaigns, pure tactical driven maps, a fantastic modding community etc.

I would recommend the ACE mod, and jump onto ACE coop server.

I would agree that Arma2 especially now with the huge improvements made with AO could be one of the, if not the most underrated FPS out at the moment.

Plus for all of the folks bitching about console ports, ArmA 2 is pure PC.
Click to expand...


Well said , Ace rocks.... I also agree that it is a true PC game. Stuck in a world of console ports. it has it's little glitches , but makes up for it. by giving us the ability to play it like we want to play it .
 
I like arma a lot, but there are issues.

Arma 2 is about as obscure as it gets for big budget games-IE few people play it, many of those who do, do so only in private servers with very small groups.

Its req's are a bit more than a lot of gamers can deal with compounding the first issue.

Its not a pick up and play game, i understand sacrifices need to be made in order to maintain the level of detail and realism they designers and many of the fans want though. Lets be honest here, arma has way to many keys to be mapped, way to many things to remember. The UI could be simplified and still maintain full functionality. Having three or four different keys all mapped for navigation is a little ridiculous.

But the worst part about the UI is the damn action menu, That may have flown way back in the flash point days but honestly these days its just not acceptable in my book. It pulls you out of the action of the game, and for me just kills the immersion, not to mention its a burden when people are trying to shoot you in the face.

My last real gripe with the game is the ancient net code it uses. Warping is a byproduct of this. The game is massive in scale and scope but taking advantage of these things in a large multiplayer game (100+ people) becomes nearly impossible due to lag issues.

My solution and tell me if im crazy here. Make arma 3 an MMOFPS, single regional servers, massive population, pvp or coop servers. WW2 online is an awesome game, arma could blow it out of the water, they just need to buckle down and create an entirely new engine, ditch the Frankenstein its showing its age. They sold VBS 1 and 2 to the US army, they aint hurtin for cash.

That being said I've probably spent a few hundred hours between arma 1 and 2 imo they are the best shooters to be released for the pc post bf2.
 
If Arma 2 had accessible controls and graphics that scaled well on older tech, I'd be all over this. I prefer the slow, open-ended combat (still love the original/real Ghost Recon), but I can't get past the ridiculous controls and really blurry graphics. I don't get how a control setup like in BF2 couldn't work here.
 
I'm not a big fan of the single-player mode because I'll admit that the controls can be frustrating but when it comes to the multiplayer, once you invest a bit of time in finding a decent server then Arma 2 shines like no other.

I can't go back to any other online shooter because I know that I won't find the range of features, vehicles, scenarios and choice as can be had from Arma 2. The flexibility and choice in deciding upon the best course of attack is massive, from armoured-infantry assaults in open or dense country supported by airstrikes and artillery to small unit operations involving teams of 5, Arma does it all.

There are a couple of issues that need fixing such as warping, sticky combat in buildings, an improvement in enemy AI, lack of flowing water and articulated vehicles. Making the game more accessible to new-comers would be welcomed, it's rather daunting if you're just starting out but it's worth it to stick it out as it's a highly enjoyable game.

Thank you Bohemia!
 
Last edited:
MP in these games is fantastic......if you get with a group of people who will actually play it as it should be played.

The new coming thing is a problem, when I forst got flashpoint back in, what 2002, I hated it so much I just gave up after like 3 days. I kept wanting to play an FPS game. went back to it like a year later and then in dawned that I have to think like a soldier to survive, then it was fantastic.

Think I'll reinstall ARMA 1 and/or 2 now.

I never found the controls to be that bad, I think they work rather well. It just takes a bit of time to get used to them and get them configured the way you want. The menu systems are quick once you memorized them.
 
For those of you who wish Arma2 functioned a little closer to BF2 in terms of controls, the guys from Project Reality are working on PR:Arma2.

www.realitymod.com

Check out the forums for most of the info. Particularly the News / Announcements section.

If you haven't played the original PR (for BF2), I highly recommend it to. Very teamwork oriented game play, and they've taken BF2 to a whole new level.
 
Colonel Sanders said:
I think it's a decent game ruined by a horrible abomination of a graphics engine.
Click to expand...

PanzerBoxb said:
Yeah, I am an avid OFP/Arma player and must admit they really need to rebuild the engine. Animations are horrid. Still, nothing like playing the Invasion 44 mod or ACE2 with 30 other folks.
Click to expand...

Don't forget to mention the shitty netcode. BF2: was playable with 64 players...this shit a horrific lagfest with 30.
 
Winwolf said:
\
My last real gripe with the game is the ancient net code it uses. Warping is a byproduct of this. The game is massive in scale and scope but taking advantage of these things in a large multiplayer game (100+ people) becomes nearly impossible due to lag issues.
Click to expand...

This. I played every single version since the original one back in 2001 when it first came out and I'm convinced they've never touched the shitty netcode. Maybe this game is great if you know 30+ people who all live 5 min away from the server. I've never found a decent lagfree game to join online unless I just create a game and mess around coop in a few missions with one friend.
 
I really wanted to fall in love with this thing in a bad way but when I tried the demo and it took 3 steps to pick up a box of ammo I knew I was in trouble.
 
Colonel Sanders said:
I think it's a decent game ruined by a horrible abomination of a graphics engine.
Click to expand...

The graphics were extremely inconsistent. I dont mind lowend graphics but this game actually fucked with me. Some things looked picturesque and somethings looked like stick figure mspaint so maybe my complaint is more textures but it was enough to put me off the game.
 
piscian18 said:
The graphics were extremely inconsistent. I dont mind lowend graphics but this game actually fucked with me. Some things looked picturesque and somethings looked like stick figure mspaint so maybe my complaint is more textures but it was enough to put me off the game.
Click to expand...

Bohemia Interactive's solution to graphics: When in doubt, increase shader count.

The graphics are another by product of an engine being stretched, all they have done over the years is swap textures and renders at range, the base render from long range is the same model the characters used at close range in flashpoint pretty much. Im sure they have been optimized but never the less, its old tech.
 
Q-BZ said:
I really wanted to fall in love with this thing in a bad way but when I tried the demo and it took 3 steps to pick up a box of ammo I knew I was in trouble.
Click to expand...

This...I gave it a bit more playtime and honestly, thought it was a horrible game, with horrible execution, with some of the worst animations, and boring gameplay. Honestly couldn't see how it was even released in that state.
 
The way to enjoy Arma 2 and OA is in a good clan, just in practice I've had tons of fun, and matches against other clans are very intense.
 
The problem really is that it's intervention time.
 
Personally I've spent over 530hrs playing Arma2/Arrowhead.

Arma2 & it's expansions are Military Simulation games. If you go into it thinking you are going to run and gun like BF2 or TF2 or really any other fps you are going to get dropped faster than you can blink. One shot can and will kill you like real life so you really need to think before you act. Most missions require some sort of battle plan and this is even more so true in multiplayer. This game requires actual tactics.

There are alot of groups out there that focus on this aspect it. Some get deep into it and have actual Squads, Ranks, Commanders, etc in and out of the game and others offer a more casual aspect. But almost all of them use Teamspeak and encourage/have very good team play and discourage the whole "lone wolf" mentality. I've played "events" with close to 90 ppl on a server where the mission briefing has taken 30mins and pre-op "orders" have been posted a week in advance. But on the other side of it, there are plenty of times where we just pick a mission and kill everything.

Here are a few sites for those looking,
United Operations Very active Causal & Sim group (not a clan)
Shacktac Very Structured Arma Clan
Tactical Gamer Causal but not as active (not a clan)
 
Colonel Sanders said:
I think it's a decent game ruined by a horrible abomination of a graphics engine.
Click to expand...

^this
Sure it's a super ambitious pc game in a time when most developers are content just porting console games, but its rather hard to give a nod to a game when even a 2000$ rig running it at medium settings lags to hell. I guess it kinda serves as an example why pc gaming is in the state it is.
 
No it don't serve as any kind of example of that.

Really cheap rigs can run most new games on PC now.

Even Crysis was playable on DX9, High settings on a 3870.
 
cthulhuiscool said:
^this
Sure it's a super ambitious pc game in a time when most developers are content just porting console games, but its rather hard to give a nod to a game when even a 2000$ rig running it at medium settings lags to hell. I guess it kinda serves as an example why pc gaming is in the state it is.
Click to expand...

I gota disagree with you here, I could price you out a comp for less than a grand that will run this game fine with most things on high. I was able to play this game on medium settings with 3 gigs of ram, a 939 3800 and a 9800 gt averaging 30 fps. Post processing is what kills the frame rate for most people, turn that down and suddenly the game becomes quite a bit more manageable. Running the game absolutely maxed out is gona take one hell of a rig, but your over selling it here buddy.
 
fasterthanlight said:
I have to say I have been playing PC games for a long time now and I have had many favorites.

I have lost many a girlfriend to CS and CS:S. I have also spent just as much time playing BF2.

However, in the last 6 months, I have spent 450+ hours playing ARMA 2. With a good graphics card and an adjustment from Action to Simulation in my head for the game type, this has to be a combination of my 2 favorites games above. You can do SO much as far as just playing to editing and creating any kind of mission you want.

The only drawback is that this is not an MMO. It would be really cool to have the gamestyle of Planetside. Also, being able to customize your soldier with camo, dress uniforms, and weapons modifications.

What do you all think?
Click to expand...

Its the best FPS shooter on pc period and a fine example of a company who gives a fuck about pc gamers instead 9/10 games who treat us like console kiddies.

sooo many pc gamers moan and moan about dumbed down games that their 10 year old hardware can still run yet have not got the balls to play a proper pc game that requires good hardware.

people moan and say how shit the engine is just because that same 10 year old system they have cant run this game but can run console ports. THINK why. this is not a fucking console port. its a game that PUSHES pc systems to its knees not because of bad coding, but because of the sheer size of the game world and its graphics quality
 
cthulhuiscool said:
^this
Sure it's a super ambitious pc game in a time when most developers are content just porting console games, but its rather hard to give a nod to a game when even a 2000$ rig running it at medium settings lags to hell. I guess it kinda serves as an example why pc gaming is in the state it is.
Click to expand...

LOL this is why most pc games are console ports because when we DO get a game that pushed hardware, you get people like you who say you got to spend 1 million dollers in a rig to make the game playable lol.

thats why game devs dont want to make a game that pushes pc hardware. because of people like you .
 
The graphics in these games never bothered me even if they were silly at times. To me they did a good job specially when you think of how ambitious it is and with all the stuff going on. I think they had to make make it look the way it does just to make it work. Flashpoint is the best example. It looks rather silly, even when it was new, it looked odd but the gameplay 100% made up for any short coming of the graphics.

One of my only gripes is the voices when you in a mission...Like a single message, say, "Enemey spotted, 11 o'clock" every word sounds like it was recorded by a different person and then the game just stitches them together to make a sentence..AMRA1/2 are worse than Flashpoint with this.
 
one of these days i swear i'll try ARMA 1 and ARMA 2 but i just haven't bothered to look into either games.

as far as the MMO thing goes, hell no.
 
cthulhuiscool said:
^this
Sure it's a super ambitious pc game in a time when most developers are content just porting console games, but its rather hard to give a nod to a game when even a 2000$ rig running it at medium settings lags to hell. I guess it kinda serves as an example why pc gaming is in the state it is.
Click to expand...


you sir, need to quit buying OEM gaming rig's and go back to playing on the console. quit giving people that actually know how to build a system to play a game like this a bad name in the gaming world.

the game isnt that graphically demanding and if your spending 2 grand on a system then you obviously have other issues like not knowing wtf your suppose to buy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top