JohnO

Well as you all probably know this year ArmA2 and OFP2 will be coming out and was wondering which one I should get?

__________________

Buccaneer

Good question. Well presented JohnO.

I will probably end up getting both (unless one of them is absolutely slated)!

I was one of the ArmA beta testers (sic) who downloaded the game (from Sprocket) and started playing it here on TG in November 2006. It has certainly matured over the last 18 months. But still has its' problems.

I wouldn't be suprised if ArmA2 is ArmA1 at beta 1.14.

There is a German PC magazine that has stated the final ArmA patch 1.xx will be out in the middle of the month! (Go figure). Here is the source: http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bi...T;f=64;t=73324

__________________

jex

Unless you can leap forward in time, or consult some psychic, how will we know which one to get? I'll wait till each one comes out and see what they offer. I'm hoping they're both going to be great games.

__________________
Jex

Dslyecxi

I take it you mean "beta tester" in the sense that you bought a retail product and believed that it was in a state that made it a beta. The term "beta tester" is a bit different - there was a team of actual beta testers for ArmA (like OFP), for instance. I assume that you are not claiming to have been one of those guys, but rather are using the alternate, less accurate meaning of the phrase.

Now, as to the question - it's pretty much impossible to say which will be better at this point. OFP2 has released zero gameplay footage as well as zero un-altered in-engine non-rendered shots. If they intend to ship this year, that is a very bad sign.

ArmA2 is an evolution of the ArmA1 engine, so there is actually a development history to reflect on. BIS has delivered products - the OFP2 team has not. Whether you think ArmA1 is perfect or not is secondary to the fact that one team (BIS) has delivered something, and the other (Codemasters OFP2 team) is nothing but talk and rendered screens currently.

Having both games be successful would be great. However, I am extremely wary of OFP2 at this point, based on a variety of factors but primarily due to the fact that they have produced nothing of substance so far.

__________________

JohnO

To answer my own question, I agree with Dslyecxi on the account that I haven't found anything that they have shown what OFP2 can and/or will do. As for ArmA2 its another story. I like what I have seen, when I looked at what ArmA2 can and will do. So either way I will most likely get ArmA2. And no I can't see into the future, if I could I would have learn by now how to fly those bloody helicopters in ArmA. Wait until I get started on aircrafts next

__________________

Fenian420

Yea, same thought, Since I havent played OFP1 I gotta say ArmA is just already probably the one I'd get although it does matter a lot on the content that comes out saying what has what and what each one is missing... I'll probably be doing a bit of reading before making a purchase.. And Im hoping that ArmA 2 or OFP2(if its good) will come out for the PS3, anyone know about this? Thought somewhere I read arma2 would,

jex

Don't forget those lotto numbers as well

__________________
Jex

Buccaneer

I did indeed use the term "beta tester" very much tounge in cheek Dslyecxi. ArmA in its early version was a bit of a mess - even you must admit that!

I gave my Sprocket copy to another TG member, and I purchased the 505 version when it hit the shelves here in the UK. So I have certainly given my support to BIS. I will no doubt support them again when ArmA2 is released.

Peace -

__________________

Switch

As a matter of financial support, I will be going with OFP 2. I lost all faith in the ARMA developers after buying the game a year ago and still playing a version thats unfit for release. I doubt the guys developing OFP II are going to make the same mistake and release a game in what could at best be described as 'beta state'

Perhaps the team at bohemia are putting their revenue to good use and really making ARMA II a good *functional* game, but I don't appreciate that they did so by bilking 50 bucks from my pocket.

Its certainly way to early to say which will be the better game, but it already seems clear to me who doesnt deserves the patronage.

__________________
|TG|Switch

Better known as:
That noob who crashed the chopper.
That noob who ran over the mine.
That noob who TK'd me with a sniper rifle.
That noob who hit that APC at 300m with light AT! Our APC...

vanity11

Wasn't the ArmA release pretty much their final dying effort? I thought I read stories about them running out of money and couldn't develop the game anymore. So it was either scrap the company or release what they had in hopes of future funding. If that's factual, then their gamble paid off.

__________________

JRCOBRA

I'd go for Arma2 because as Dslyecxi said Codemasters hasn't put fourth anything to show. I'd rather stick with the company that actually made OFP not the company that published it.

Xmaster

word.

__________________

=JpS=SgtRock

Actually, I've found over the 20some years that I've been buying software (for everything from PDAs to mainframes with stops at every level between) that whether or not a particular piece of software should be considered alpha, beta, release candidate, or finished had very little to do with what the sales and marketing departments had to say. I've learned to judge software the same way I do everything else:

• Is it finished?
• Are all advertised features working correctly?
• Is anything missing?

Alpha software is defined by most software developers as incomplete. The major structure is in place, but many features are only stubbed out and don't really work. Adding/deleting features can be expected between alpha and beta. Major changes to the framework can be expected. Crashes are expected. Data loss is likely.

Beta software is defined as framework complete and nearly feature complete. Plenty of known bugs that limit the overall use of the application. Some features, although included, are not quite ready. Crashes are unlikely. Data loss very unlikely.

Release candidates are feature complete. No known major bugs in any subsystem. At this point, the development team is concentrating on polish before release.

In that regard, I think ArmA only became feature complete with the 1.12beta when VoN finally started working the way it was designed. From everything I've read, the initial release was an alpha. I certainly regard my first exposure to it (the 1.05 demo) as not much better than a late alpha or early beta. 1.08 and 1.09 were definitely solid betas. 1.11 would be release candidate 1. 1.12beta is rc-2 and IMO should be released to manufacture (RTM in IBM speak).

Absolutely agree with all of this. BIS, (like a very few other companies such as id software) has a proven track record of working on stuff until it is done then obsessively tweaking it until it's unbelievably polished. I fully expect that ArmA2 will be a much more complete game than OFP2.

BTW, I don't fault BIS at all for releasing ArmA in an unfinished state. If they hadn't, then they wouldn't have been able to keep their doors open and we wouldn't be having so much fun playing their product. I just wish they'd been a bit more, I don't know, up front about the overall lack of polish in the initial release?

Fenian420

Very well put, but If I have seen somewhere that ArmA2 will be put onto the 360 and PS3 then I'm almost sure that it'll be released in ultra high quality of playing and everything.. Wouldnt be suprised if they released it on PC for 6 months or so before releasing it to consles to test it out..

Dslyecxi

I think you missed the point of what I was saying. The post was "Are you claiming to have been a beta tester of ArmA?", not "Do you think ArmA was a beta at launch?". There is a very distinct meaning to "ArmA beta tester" in the way I posed the question. He clarified that he did not mean that, and that's all I was interested in.

__________________