ArmA 2

[Duper]

ok...

define "better"

give 5 examples please.  I'm not being snide.  I'm leary of tossing down $50.00+ for a game that doesn't look or act much better than World War II On-Line.

If it IS indeed a superior product than I'm willing to reconsider, but you still have to ask why release a sub-par demo.

[Alexander]

The servers are of a higher quality, there are many (MANY) more people on them, the game is more optimised so there's less lag, you have access to all of the game's massive hoard of equipment... Oh, the co-op Campaign is pretty win (though there are difficulties saving...)

Well there's five.

ArmA seems to be a "Love it or Hate it" thing - I love it, I know a good number of people who love it - but it seems plenty turned thier noses up at the demo

[KorJax]

Got the game, probably going to end up joining the 386th Air Calvary group (it's a group that originates from a forum I frequently visit).  Here's a video of them playing, looks like fun:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSWe8PU7CgI&hd=1

From the little bit of the campaign I've played I definatly like it more than the demo.  Haven't tried MP yet.

[Duper]

Actually Alexander, that's one. The less lag thing. I'd expect the others with a full release. I have those in any other game I play.

On lag.  Here's the deal, we're what.. 20 years into gaming on-line now and developers are still TRIPPING over this one.  I figured Net code would be standard script you learn in school these days. (I exaggerate of course here)  but really, it should be a no brainer in today's market and there's no excuse.  I work in manufactoring and in development, rigorous testing is a must. Game development should be the same way. I could rant on and on about this and processes that are critical to the development of any product ... but I won't

Oh, thanks for the tip on the motion blur! worked like a charm.

[Ravir]

well, technically we're just about 15 years into real "networked" multiplayer action, if you go by the spread of DWANGO for the original DOOM.  And though the programming technology has had a chance to grow by leaps and bounds, the actual networks haven't.  It doesn't matter how awesome and precise some genius netcode is (though some are obviously FAR better than others), if some stick jockey is flying around with a horrendous ping and periodic packet loss (Kitt, I'm looking at YOU), there's only so much you can do.  Even on "really good" network connections, if everybody has better than 100ms total packet travel time, that's still 1/10th of a second, which in a fast action game can be enough to make you wonder "wtf is going on with my curving can't-hit-jack bullitz!!!111"

[XBLACKFIREX]

Well I read most of the replays to this not all, I didnt see alot of good comments... Saddly most complants are correct, the Demo isnt the full version. Its alot diffrent, The game is Basicly Arma with Upgrades... Not much else, While I agree it should have had the upgrades to animations. Its basicly what most arma and OFP players wanted. The new OFP 2 is something of the same only its a FPS. Arma 2, to me isnt a FPS its suppost to be a Simulator, its pretty fun to do teamwork in and yes its annoyin to go inbuildings at times. I for one have played since OFP, its normal to me. To those who are new to it... its not up to speed with most of your FPSs im sure.. if you want a run and gun FPS, but the map size and equipment of arma... OFP2 should give you what you want. I cant say im thrilled with OFP2, infact I dont like the "run & gun" of Battlefield being placed in what Looked like a game that should have blown Arma2 off the shelf. Now, Im sure it will do so, but it might lack realism as I see it. Time will tell maybe I will like it better then I think. Play the demo, and remember the full version has alot more to it. Oh and to the guy who said they walk 5 miles all the time? I hope your playing alone, because online calling for a pick up is easy and most pilots are more then happy to fly in an give ya a lift. Try the Evo & Domination games in Multiplayer. TTYL have fun guys.

[Duper]

well, technically we're just about 15 years into real "networked" multiplayer action, if you go by the spread of DWANGO for the original DOOM.  And though the programming technology has had a chance to grow by leaps and bounds, the actual networks haven't.  It doesn't matter how awesome and precise some genius netcode is (though some are obviously FAR better than others), if some stick jockey is flying around with a horrendous ping and periodic packet loss (Kitt, I'm looking at YOU), there's only so much you can do.  Even on "really good" network connections, if everybody has better than 100ms total packet travel time, that's still 1/10th of a second, which in a fast action game can be enough to make you wonder "wtf is going on with my curving can't-hit-jack bullitz!!!111"

Very correct.
To be fair, I do realize that implementing net code in an optimized fashion to said engine takes some doing. I know it's not just a chunk of code you can cut and past in.   Granted, it's whole lot better than when 200 pings were the norm and a 33.6K was mind boggling fast.          And LAg is "normally" an issue addressed in the first couple of patches. .... unless you're microsoft...

[Ravir]

well that's sort of my point.  You can't 'fix' lag universally, because true 'lag' is not a product of nor under the control of the game.  Actual lag is a product of the physical network involved in transmitting the packets.  It's like playing basketball, you can't alter gravity to make the ball go in the basket every time, but you can learn to account for gravity and the strength of your muscles when you make the shot.   Apparently, though, ArmA2 sucks at basketball 'cause all I saw were bricks, loose balls, and rim shots.

(shut up Masakari, I'm talking about basketball, you pervert)