-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Official ArmA 2 Thread of DOGCHUTES RGR
- Thread starter Anton Sugar
- Start date
Anton Sugar
Member
Never saw this stuff before on the Real Virtuality engines:
Anton Sugar
Member
Just browsed the tactical gamer forum, jesus this game looks good:
Joseph Merrick
Member
oblivion? wtf
HOLY FUCKING CRAP.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khG8pVEmzO4&feature=related
Can't wait to mess around with the sandbox.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khG8pVEmzO4&feature=related
Can't wait to mess around with the sandbox.
Anton Sugar
Member
TO THOSE WORRIED ABOUT THE OBLIVION COMPARISON:
It is NOT "oblivion with guns". The comparison was made because of the free open world that you have. You are given a mission, but you execute it your own way, using your own path. You interact with NPCs/other factions and can either help them or not. From what the review said, there will be more than a few instances where you have two or more missions offered at the same time, from various people, and it's up to you to decide who to help.
Think "dynamic and open world". You know, sort of what Oblivion should have been. There we go:
"It's what Oblivion should have been, with guns."
List your Steam IDs, I'll add them to the OP.
Still a fave: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5J26XyvNPk&fmt=18
It is NOT "oblivion with guns". The comparison was made because of the free open world that you have. You are given a mission, but you execute it your own way, using your own path. You interact with NPCs/other factions and can either help them or not. From what the review said, there will be more than a few instances where you have two or more missions offered at the same time, from various people, and it's up to you to decide who to help.
Think "dynamic and open world". You know, sort of what Oblivion should have been. There we go:
"It's what Oblivion should have been, with guns."
List your Steam IDs, I'll add them to the OP.
Still a fave: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5J26XyvNPk&fmt=18
Joseph Merrick
Member
worried? heh. it's just a really weird comparison.
Dark Stalkers
Member
Mr. Snrub said:
Yeah, this is correct. My comparison was too simple and narrow, mainly 'cause I played until 1 AM and had to get up for work a few hours later.
But essentially the first few missions are linear, then the game opens up and you get command of a small group of soldiers and helicopter support and can go anywhere in the world and take different missions and go about them in any way you want. It's pretty damn awesome and I can't believe that anyone who has played it at length could give this a poor score despite the bugs. (and for what it's worth I haven't encountered anything game-breaking yet)
brain_stew
Member
Agent Ironside
Member
My only complaint I see visually is the muzzle flashes, please tell me this can be fixed through a patch or mod.....right? : /
Nikorasu said:
Que? The game feels nothing like Oblivion beyond a very surface level. Eurogamer was only comparing the two in the "both are large, open world games where you generally get to choose which objective to fulfill" way. That's where the comparison ends. Nothing else is similar. ArmA 2 is a much more dynamic game, both in the ways you complete missions, and even which ones you receive. I played that first night-time level about 4 times to finish it due to random bugginess, and I received different side-missions each time. The squad system and relative realism alone makes it a very different gameplay experience.
Really the only thing that bugs me about the game are.... the bugs. The mission scripting really is a mess, as well as the A.I. pathfinding at times. I couldn't finish that night level in several attempts because one of the A.I. teammates would decide to just stop moving, and even if I manually moved him to the mission trigger, it still wouldn't do anything. I had to revert to the start of the mission. This issue is alleviated greatly when you become the team leader and get to command people around, since you can basically force the A.I. to wake up and move their asses.
I've barely touched the surface of this game and it's already so intense and awesome. It really is just the bugs, as usual, but I expect those will eventually be minimized with official and unofficial patches.
Nikorasu said:Yeah, this is correct. My comparison was too simple and narrow, mainly 'cause I played until 1 AM and had to get up for work a few hours later.
But essentially the first few missions are linear, then the game opens up and you get command of a small group of soldiers and helicopter support and can go anywhere in the world and take different missions and go about them in any way you want. It's pretty damn awesome and I can't believe that anyone who has played it at length could give this a poor score despite the bugs. (and for what it's worth I haven't encountered anything game-breaking yet)
Ah, didn't see this till after I posted.
I can sort of understand the scores due to the bugs. If this game was bug-free, it would easily be the GOTY so far and scoring into the 90s. It's so much more ambitious and larger in scope than any other game this year, and in a fairly long while, and the execution is mostly solid. The bugs do damage the game at this point, though, and can lead to some unnecessary frustration and repetition. Despite the fact that this is the sort of game that is often patched and quickly so, I can understand reviewers rating the game based on how it was when they played it.
Zeliard said:
Heh. I actually finished the first mission without restarting by just going prone at the rally point and setting time compression to 4x and waiting a few minutes. Eventually they clear whatever is causing the 'blockage' and move on, usually a distant enemy they're really hung up on killing. It was quite funny though, to see the AI commander harping on the other AI soldiers.
"3 and 4, get back in formation!"
"3 AND 4, MOVE IT!"
The computer was basically yelling at itself. :lol
Is this game the type of game where it's possible to play without it being necessary to use ever bit of complexity in the interface? Everything I've read here and elsewhere sounds awesome, but if I have to minutely control every single aspect of my squad's formations at all times and such, I can picture this game not really being one for me.
Templar Wizard
Member
dLMN8R said:
well, i can very easily play the game using a x360 controller. there is a profile already made for it, LB pulls up your command menu, d-pad scroll, select with A.
doesnt get easier than that.
the game is off the fucking hook. i was a huge OpFlasher, wasnt really taken with arma, but THIS. its very very good. also, it looks superb in 3d.
BravoSuperStar
Member
Pre-ordered on Steam. Sandbox editor is going to be epic.
GeneralIroh
Member
I wonder if this software and a standard web camera would work with this game. http://www.seeingmachines.com/product/faceapi/
This game's sound design seems awful though. Everything just feels like its being played one by one.
This game's sound design seems awful though. Everything just feels like its being played one by one.
Dreams-Visions
Member
epic.LovingSteam said:
Hmmm but i'm hearing different reports of the game running like crap on high end hardware.
Dont think there's co-op in this correct? And is it one of those games where you walk for 20 kilometres just to die for a burst of fire of the enemy hiding in the bushes?
I want to play this but I'm not sure whether my rig can take (no I do not believe the system requirements on the box)
i7 920
4 gig ram
4870 1gig
Can I play this at 1920 X 1080 with some stuff turned off?
Ohh boy I am so wrong about running it at 1920 X 1080
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,...chmarks-and-visual-quality-compared/Practice/
Dont think there's co-op in this correct? And is it one of those games where you walk for 20 kilometres just to die for a burst of fire of the enemy hiding in the bushes?
I want to play this but I'm not sure whether my rig can take (no I do not believe the system requirements on the box)
i7 920
4 gig ram
4870 1gig
Can I play this at 1920 X 1080 with some stuff turned off?
Ohh boy I am so wrong about running it at 1920 X 1080
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,...chmarks-and-visual-quality-compared/Practice/
BudokaiMR2
Member
Okay it might be time to get bootcamp working.
I used to love the original Flashpoint.
wonder how it will run on my macbook pro...
I used to love the original Flashpoint.
wonder how it will run on my macbook pro...
Why would you walk 20k, just get a heli to take you In those benchmarks they have fillrate set to 150% which kills performance, I'll load up a map and play for a little and post my FRAPS details.
I just played some of the first scenario, 1920x1200 with 100% fill rate, view distance set to 3k and settings on high and very high and I got an average FPS of 35. When I spawned about 30 tanks in the editor I got like 20-25FPS, just depends on what is going on really.
I only have a Q6600 (@ 3.0GHz), 4GB RAM and a 4870.
In those benchmarks they have fillrate set to 150% which kills performance, I'll load up a map and play for a little and post my FRAPS details.I just played some of the first scenario, 1920x1200 with 100% fill rate, view distance set to 3k and settings on high and very high and I got an average FPS of 35. When I spawned about 30 tanks in the editor I got like 20-25FPS, just depends on what is going on really.
I only have a Q6600 (@ 3.0GHz), 4GB RAM and a 4870.
Ikuu said:Why would you walk 20k, just get a heli to take you
I just played some of the first scenario, 1920x1200 with 100% fill rate, view distance set to 3k and settings on high and very high and I got an average FPS of 35. When I spawned about 30 tanks in the editor I got like 20-25FPS, just depends on what is going on really.
I only have a Q6600 (@ 3.0GHz), 4GB RAM and a 4870.
I average about 25-30, at 1680x1050 with a Q6600, 2GB RAM and an oc'd 8800GTX (that card's still holding pretty strong). I have a few of the settings at high instead of very high (like textures and object detail). Some of you here with newer beast machines should be able to run it relatively easily maxed out and probably add some AA on top.
It'll definitely tax most rigs, but the game is generally beautiful enough to make it worth it, and I expect performance will increase a bit with future patches (apparently the first two haven't concentrated on that aspect of it). I've seen shit that hasn't made my jaw drop as much or as often since the original Crysis. Something as generally simple as calling in a helicopter ride and hearing and watching as it lands is visually and atmospherically stunning every time it happens, as well as the sight of seeing your team running to board it.
brain_stew
Member
bigswords said:
The "Fillrate 200%" renders the game at twice the resolution from what I've gathered, so yeah, at 1080p that's going to destroy nearly any card. Knock that back down to 100% and you should see a huge boost.
brain_stew said:
Also go into arma2.cfg and make sure the render values are identical to your in-game resolution. There's a bug that can happen where even if you have the fillrate at 100% through the menu, the values don't match up in the config. I think they changed up the whole fillrate thing in the newest patch, since they added a form of AA (that still doesn't work right).
Anton Sugar
Member
Ikuu said:Why would you walk 20k, just get a heli to take you
I just played some of the first scenario, 1920x1200 with 100% fill rate, view distance set to 3k and settings on high and very high and I got an average FPS of 35. When I spawned about 30 tanks in the editor I got like 20-25FPS, just depends on what is going on really.
I only have a Q6600 (@ 3.0GHz), 4GB RAM and a 4870.
Seriously, something seems fishy about that benchmark. They say the game is only playable at 1280x1024 on their monster system with normal/low details? Everything else speaks contrary to this, its just a bunch of fear mongering. From the Arma2 forums:
So stoked for this game.