http://gamingtrend.com
August 23, 2014, 01:49:28 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: OFP:DR vs ARMA2 verdict?  (Read 534 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
marcusjm
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 787


View Profile
« on: October 11, 2009, 01:56:48 PM »

Now that OFP:DR has been out for a few days and ARMA2 for a few monhts.

Those who own both versions, what game do you find better as it is now? I know both are buggy
but given that all quirks/bugs are fixed at some point, which game would win in that case?

Personally I think ARMA2 has one huge strength in it's mod community but it seems Codemasters has stronger financial muscle for
longterm commitment.
Logged

Dedicated Gamer - XBL Profile DreamsurferSWE
XFire tag - dreamsurfer
kratz
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4201



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: October 12, 2009, 03:45:34 PM »

I really haven't noticed bugs in OFP:DR... some head scratching moments, but mostly really fun.  It runs really well, has cool missions, normal controls, and nice graphics.

My impressions of ARMAII (entirely based on the demo) were that it was VERY buggy, ran like shit, didn't look particularly good, and had bad controls.
Logged
Windows95
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 447


Uses only Genuine Microsoft Software!


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: October 12, 2009, 06:37:38 PM »

OFPDR is more polished, seems to run quite well and has decent graphics.  It's not what I'd call a tactical simulation though, more action oriented then ARMA.  It also has probably some of the worst enemy AI in recent memory.  Many a mission I'll just stand behind the enemy and pick them off one by one.  They won't even turn around to return fire.  You can also see control and gameplay compromises that were made since it's also a console title.

ARMAII with the latest patch seems pretty stable.  The graphics are better then OPFDR, but there's no system in existence that can actually handle max settings.  AI is hit or miss, but certainly much better then OFPDR.  It's much more of a sim, and when everything works it's brilliant.  The problem is that quite often you'll break some piece of AI logic on a mission and everything comes to a grinding halt.

In short, I really hoped for more from both titles.  OFPDR is alright and will work, ARMAII is moments of brilliance followed by utter frustration.
Logged

16-bit and loving it!
marcusjm
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 787


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: October 12, 2009, 09:34:39 PM »

Thanks both for comparisons. This also makes me wonder about one thing. Maybe there is a threshold where a game becomes too complex for any normal pc system to handle reasonably well?

Could it be that these games have taken on more than any coding team could possibly achieve within normal time frames? I don't know but it seems to me that any reasonable chance of accurately simulating modern warfare will require much more powerful computer/console systems.
Logged

Dedicated Gamer - XBL Profile DreamsurferSWE
XFire tag - dreamsurfer
Windows95
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 447


Uses only Genuine Microsoft Software!


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: October 13, 2009, 02:21:21 PM »

Quote from: marcusjm on October 12, 2009, 09:34:39 PM

Thanks both for comparisons. This also makes me wonder about one thing. Maybe there is a threshold where a game becomes too complex for any normal pc system to handle reasonably well?

Could it be that these games have taken on more than any coding team could possibly achieve within normal time frames? I don't know but it seems to me that any reasonable chance of accurately simulating modern warfare will require much more powerful computer/console systems.

Falcon 4.0, released over 10 years ago, pretty faithfully simulated a full out war.  I can think of several other older titles as well that managed to do the same.  While I donít doubt itís a difficult programming assignment, it certainly can and has been done.  A lack of power with the hardware is not the limiting factor.
Logged

16-bit and loving it!
StriderGG
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 446


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: October 13, 2009, 02:55:10 PM »

For me, it's Arma 2 with user-made missions, hands down.

I've listed my issues with OFP2 earlier, don't really want to beat the dead horse again. They include stuff like timed missions, stupid enemy AI, mission area limits in MP, no dedicated server (MP), no join in progress (MP), poor choice of weapons (half way through and I've seen only 6 or so guns), etc. Yes, OFP2's missions are bug-free but they are so extremely simplistic, they can be replicated in Arma 2 editor in under 30 minutes.

I wish Arma 2 had performance comparable to OFP2 but then again OFP2's performance comes with compromises I am not willing to accept.
Logged
marcusjm
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 787


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: October 13, 2009, 03:46:15 PM »

True but Falcon 4 did not have to handle CQB and such intricacies while still faitfully simulating
fighter combat and tank movement.

At least BIS has an incentive to get this right though, they have military as one customer target so they have no choice
but to get these things right if they want to keep selling their systems.

StriderGG:I am leaning towards ARMA2 as well but it doesn't seem like the 360 version is on the horizon.
Logged

Dedicated Gamer - XBL Profile DreamsurferSWE
XFire tag - dreamsurfer
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.145 seconds with 37 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.044s, 2q)