Is anyone going to play Arma 2 Free?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for MusicMazter
MusicMazter

46

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#1 MusicMazter
Member since 2006 • 46 Posts

I was looking for a good online shooter and came across Arma 2 Free. It's getting released sometime later this month. I was just wondering if anyone plans on playing it?

Also if you've played Arma 2 before can you tell me your thoughts on the game.

Thanks,

MusicMazter

Avatar image for NerubianWeaver
NerubianWeaver

2046

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 NerubianWeaver
Member since 2010 • 2046 Posts
No HD graphics = no play. ArmA II looks terrible as it's today..
Avatar image for James161324
James161324

8315

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 James161324
Member since 2009 • 8315 Posts

No HD graphics = no play. ArmA II looks terrible as it's today.. NerubianWeaver

This, i may give a try, but unless the gameplay is much imrpoved which i doubt it is, i will not play much

Avatar image for agpickle
agpickle

3293

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 agpickle
Member since 2006 • 3293 Posts

No HD graphics = no play. ArmA II looks terrible as it's today.. NerubianWeaver

Arma looks far from terrible.

Avatar image for taylor12702003
taylor12702003

254

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#5 taylor12702003
Member since 2005 • 254 Posts
I think arma 2 looks great. What settings are you using?
Avatar image for NerubianWeaver
NerubianWeaver

2046

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 NerubianWeaver
Member since 2010 • 2046 Posts

[QUOTE="NerubianWeaver"]No HD graphics = no play. ArmA II looks terrible as it's today.. agpickle

Arma looks far from terrible.

Have you seen the environment and the character models? They look very bland compared to games nowdays. Another one point to consider is the horrible optimization even with the latest patch.
Avatar image for agpickle
agpickle

3293

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 agpickle
Member since 2006 • 3293 Posts

Have you seen the environment and the character models? They look very bland compared to games nowdays. Another one point to consider is the horrible optimization even with the latest patch.NerubianWeaver

Considering the scale and complexity of the game, I think it looks excellent. Better than most games, in fact.

Avatar image for NerubianWeaver
NerubianWeaver

2046

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 NerubianWeaver
Member since 2010 • 2046 Posts

[QUOTE="NerubianWeaver"]

Have you seen the environment and the character models? They look very bland compared to games nowdays. Another one point to consider is the horrible optimization even with the latest patch.agpickle

Considering the scale and complexity of the game, I think it looks excellent. Better than most games, in fact.

I admit it looks really good on screenshots, but when you play the game, graphics isn't good as many people say plus the performance is terrible. I have a fairly good PC and even on Normal settings, I get 20-25 FPS.

Avatar image for KLONE360
KLONE360

1119

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 KLONE360
Member since 2007 • 1119 Posts

[QUOTE="agpickle"]

[QUOTE="NerubianWeaver"]

Have you seen the environment and the character models? They look very bland compared to games nowdays. Another one point to consider is the horrible optimization even with the latest patch.NerubianWeaver

Considering the scale and complexity of the game, I think it looks excellent. Better than most games, in fact.

I admit it looks really good on screenshots, but when you play the game, graphics isn't good as many people say plus the performance is terrible. I have a fairly good PC and even on Normal settings, I get 20-25 FPS.

I think I play it mostly on high and have 25 -40 or so FPS, its demanding, and isnt a COD game, Its a simulation, its not about graphics, its about the actual simulation. You know, the part where you play.

Avatar image for sillaris
sillaris

1083

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 sillaris
Member since 2008 • 1083 Posts

[QUOTE="agpickle"]

[QUOTE="NerubianWeaver"]

Have you seen the environment and the character models? They look very bland compared to games nowdays. Another one point to consider is the horrible optimization even with the latest patch.NerubianWeaver

Considering the scale and complexity of the game, I think it looks excellent. Better than most games, in fact.

I admit it looks really good on screenshots, but when you play the game, graphics isn't good as many people say plus the performance is terrible. I have a fairly good PC and even on Normal settings, I get 20-25 FPS.

the screen shots are what it looks like in game. In game it looks even better. Normal settings, 20-25fps, the problem is your computer/settings

Avatar image for mrbojangles25
mrbojangles25

58533

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#11 mrbojangles25
Member since 2005 • 58533 Posts

Are people losing their damn minds?

"ArmA II looks bad"

"If the gameplay is not improved, no I wont play it"

Wow folks, I am looking forward to it, specifically because it will make the community larger, which might make it easier for someone a little more casual (such as myself) to get into the game.

Avatar image for KHAndAnime
KHAndAnime

17565

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#12 KHAndAnime
Member since 2009 • 17565 Posts

Are people losing their damn minds?

"ArmA II looks bad"

"If the gameplay is not improved, no I wont play it"

Wow folks, I am looking forward to it, specifically because it will make the community larger, which might make it easier for someone a little more casual (such as myself) to get into the game.

mrbojangles25
Honestly, I didn't put much time into ArmA 2 because I thought the gameplay could use a lot of improving. Overall it felt far less fluid than OFP, despite being much more recent and capable. Where OFP came across as innovative and refreshing, ArmA 2 came across as cringe-inducing. It's really poorly optimized too, with lots of icky input lag. :P
Avatar image for ChubbyGuy40
ChubbyGuy40

26442

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#13 ChubbyGuy40
Member since 2007 • 26442 Posts

Honestly, I didn't put much time into ArmA 2 because I thought the gameplay could use a lot of improving. Overall it felt far less fluid than OFP, despite being much more recent and capable. Where OFP came across as innovative and refreshing, ArmA 2 came across as cringe-inducing. It's really poorly optimized too, with lots of icky input lag. :PKHAndAnime

Input lag? SIMULATOR BRO! Theres lag on a real battlefield all the time gawl!!!

Avatar image for nyran125
nyran125

707

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#14 nyran125
Member since 2008 • 707 Posts

the game itself looks exactly like those screen shots. So i dont know what your talking about. Going into a forest in this game is by far a million times more realistic than Battlefield or call of duty . It actually looks and feels like a real farmland. I know so many places outside my city that looks exactly like this. Almost identical. Go to your nearest lake forest and then go play Arma 2 editor mode and look at chenaurusand you wont notice much difference from tha to real life. theyve captured a very realistic landscape so much better than any other game ive ever played. Company of heroes does a pretty good job on realistic environments.

When i first walked throughthe chenerus forest, i was shocked athow realistic it was and how right it felt over any other game ive efer played that has a forest. No other game has ever created a forest environment like Arma 2 has done. But i agree the textures on the people arent 2011 . But the environment itself more than makes up for the lack of textures on peoples faces and bla bla bla. The game itself feels like your walking through real country towns and thats all i care about.

The people that think the graphics in this game are crap, should get thier eyes checked. BUT, i do agree with you that the performance is crap. However in the editor mode the performance is fine. Arma 2 is the Most underrated game of all time. HOWEVER i completey agree with the performance issues. They should of focused on performance over graphics and the game would of been so much better.

but then look at grand theft auto 4 on PC, that also ran like a pile of sht tooon alot of mid-high end systems.Even starcraft 2 has soem wierd performanceissues on Mid range systems.But thats no excuse, If I pay for the game and the recommended specs meets my computer specs, i expect much better performance than what is in Arma 2 or Arma for that matter. At least on low -medium settings.

Avatar image for Croag821
Croag821

2331

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#15 Croag821
Member since 2009 • 2331 Posts
The graphics in arma 2 are great. You do need a decent rig to run it on high though as the game is very cpu demanding. Also keep in mind that it is a much slower paced game, its made to be a simulation and not a run and gun like CoD and BF games.
Avatar image for koospetoors
koospetoors

3715

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#17 koospetoors
Member since 2004 • 3715 Posts
Nope, I already own it. But I heard that you can get a remake of the first Operation Flashpoint (and its expansion pack) for free if you still own the CD-key of that game, so I will definitely get that one.