-
10-13-2009, 09:24 PM #1
Difference between this and Arma 2?
I've been reading reviews but I'm still a little confused. What is the difference, if any, between this and Arma 2? I'm sitting here with the mouse cursor on the buy button, I'm so close. Thanks in advance.
-
10-13-2009, 09:51 PM #2
Re: Difference between this and Arma 2?
you shouldnt make your decision on what other prople say about this game. i consider it a tactical shooter. like any new game now days it has initial bumps and warts, its worth $40 unless you need it for the rent or milk for the kids
-
10-13-2009, 10:04 PM #3
Re: Difference between this and Arma 2?
I think a comparison would be helpful, I trust the judgment of folks around here
I loved Arma and have Arma 2 so I want to know if anything new in this game should warrant a purchase.
-
10-13-2009, 10:21 PM #4
Re: Difference between this and Arma 2?
Quick and dirty summary...
OFPDR won't be as much of an in-depth milsim as Arma is, however I would say it is like a Arma-lite. It's very much a tactical shooter as Chief mentioned. Players are quicker to the action, however the squad definitely needs to think before they rush in or they will die quickly.
I like Arma but don't have the time to play the long games. OFPDR is a great happy medium between ArmA and CoD/Project Reality that I can play more on the spur of the moment.Last edited by asch; 10-14-2009 at 10:43 AM. Reason: spelling
-
10-14-2009, 12:43 AM #5
- Join Date
- Oct 2007
- Posts
- 375
Re: Difference between this and Arma 2?
Buy it if you like single player.
Wait if you like PvP online.
-
10-14-2009, 01:13 AM #6
- Join Date
- Apr 2008
- Location
- Pittsburgh
- Posts
- 217
Re: Difference between this and Arma 2?
I think the biggest difference is that ArmA 2 has dedicated servers and a stronger backing from the community. Maybe OFDR will achieve that same support once dedicateds become available, but I think it may always be considered the red headed step child.
Both games are realistic and tactical, they just have two very distinctive approaches to their game.
-
10-14-2009, 05:08 AM #7
-
10-14-2009, 05:55 AM #8
Re: Difference between this and Arma 2?
Good enough for Damonte.
|TG-6th|Damonte










Proud to have been an Irregular!
-
10-14-2009, 10:28 AM #9
Re: Difference between this and Arma 2?
Disclaimer: I only played ArmA2 twice, so I can't really compare it to that. (Didn't have time/motivation to get it running smoothly, get all the patches/plugins/etc installed, and figure out all the controls). I played ArmA1 plenty though, so my comparisons are based on that.
I think asch hit it pretty good. "ArmA lite" is a very apt description.
To me, it's like ArmA minus the huge learning curve on controls, relatively steep hardware requirements, and necessary time commitment. Of course to achieve this, CM had to remove some flexibility in the controls department, reduce some graphical candy, and simplify/automate some things. To me, they nailed the balance just right, but others surely prefer the "more" that ArmA brings to the table.
Where the two are similar is in the combat. I'm sure some will point out differences, but... to me, once you're engaged, the experience is very similar. The AI is about the same. The expansive terrain feels about the same. The graphics are about the same (on my PC anyway - I had to run ArmA on pretty low detail... maybe give the edge to DR as it seems a bit more optimized for lower end PCs). The weapons handle about the same. The immersion and fear of death is about the same.
To me, the biggest difference is that in DR, you can be in combat pretty quick - In ArmA it always seemed to take a good 45 minutes before you saw combat... between squadding up, outfitting with weapons etc, and then transporting to the frontline. (Again, this is based only on personal experience from at least a year ago.)
The vehicles in ArmA are way better IMO - particularly the helos. The OFPDR vehicles feel a little on the 'arcadey' side to me.
|TG-12th|WhiskeySix
-
10-14-2009, 02:51 PM #10
Re: Difference between this and Arma 2?
I routinely play both, often one right after the other so I see first hand the appeal of both.
The recent issues OFPDR has had with connection issues has been a minor hindrance but that's all. The main reason ArmA 2 will come out on top, when all is said and done, is because it is a superior product, overall.
There are some caveats to that statement however.
To enjoy ArmA 2 you need a smoking hot machine.
To enjoy ArmA 2 you need abundant patience.
OFPDR only requires a moderate degree of patience, and an average PC.
That said, content wise, OFPDR has a solid campaign and smooth interface- very slick. My worry is that after I play through the 5 hours or so of the campaign...then what?
I tried some PvP and was very disappointed- what were they thinking???
The graphics of OFPDR are not benefited by having a fast computer. The character models aren't nearly as crisp as in ArmA 2. The digi camo pattern looks like a blob compared to A2. So does the whole soldier kit. Vehicles are also rendered better in A2.
Vehicle use is better (x1000) in A2.
To sum up, to me, A2 looks and feels much more believable.
However...
The death animations are much better in OFPDR than A2. The AI don't do things like stand up then fall down when killed like they do in A2. The same can be said for the voice acting. Much better in OFP. As a friend stated as we were playing coop, (he hates ArmA, btw) "at least the voice acting doesn't make me think I'm on a combat mission with Steven Hawking"
Where the fu*k is lean? The lack of lean in a milsim fps is REALLY ANNOYING! (Unforgivable, really).
The other issue I have is with the bullet spread of some of the weapons. The MG=WTF! I'm prone, not suppressed, not recovering from sprinting- I can't hit the side of a barn! Not even with short bursts.
The DMR is crazy too. Put the divergence into the scope, not the bullet. It's ridiculous.
I feel sorry for the coop players that are stuck with these kits.
I want OFPDR to succeed. I will be patient and see what the devs do, patch and DLC wise.
I think it's worth $ just for the cinematic campaign and the potential.
But if the two games were frozen, patch and content wise right now, ArmA 2 is the clear winner.
A2 will still be around and strong, long after OFPDR has been buried and forgotten.
JM2C.Windows 7 rc (64 bit)
Intel QuadCore 9650 3.0Ghz (Yorkfield) running at 3.6Ghz
Nvidia GTX 285
Creative Xfi pro gamer
8 gig Corsair xms2 extreme DDR2 8500
-
10-14-2009, 04:13 PM #11
- Join Date
- Jul 2008
- Location
- Curitiba - Brazil
- Posts
- 121
Re: Difference between this and Arma 2?
If u like other milsim like OFP(1) and ArmA, go Arma2, if u like FPS games like CoD4, go OFPDR...
OFPDR has NOTHING to do with the good'ole OFP
-
10-14-2009, 04:29 PM #12
-
10-15-2009, 12:25 AM #13
Re: Difference between this and Arma 2?
I've played a lot of ArmA, some of ArmA2, and some of OFPDR. Personally, I prefer the gameplay experience of OFPDR the most out of all three.
One of the things I've never liked about ArmA is the "feel" of the movement controls. The way your character walks (to simulate realism, but WASD isn't a good control scheme to simulate walking realism IMO) and the way the mouse moves always threw me off with ArmA. I understand the purpose behind it all, but I never enjoyed it. With OFP the movement is nice and smooth. You have a little head-bob effect, but that is the extent of the "simulation" that is being attempted. Walking, running, looking, and shooting are much smoother and more streamlined, which I think is necessary with a mouse & keyboard. I would prefer the ArmA method perhaps if I had some kind of VR headset and held a heavy rifle-replica controller or something.
Someone mentioned ArmA2 requiring a "smoking hot" machine and that can't be understated enough I think. I do happen to have such a machine (core i7 @ 3.8Ghz, brand new radeon 5870, 6GB corsair triple channel DDR memory) and ArmA2 runs abysmally bad compared to other demanding games like Crysis. On the SP mission where you have to assault the factory in the town (4th mission?) my FPS stays at around 20 on the best hardware you can buy right now, and that is on the LOWEST possible graphical settings! I'm running in freaking 800x600 with no textures or anything and it STILL only gives me 20FPS on that mission. Outside of towns I can turn settings up to HIGH on average and get around 40FPS, which is a little worse than what I get with Crysis. The other thing that annoys me about ArmA/2 is that even on high settings the graphics are so inconsistent. Looking at some things looks absolutely beautiful, but even on the highest settings, character faces look abysmal and vehicle interiors are the same.
The graphics in OFPDR might not reach the highs that ArmA2 does, but I can run that game on max settings on three 1920x1200 screen (eyefinity ftw!) and get 40 FPS. That's off a single card. When I only run on 1 screen I get about 70-90 FPS. And the graphics are consistent.
Anyway, I'm not trying to say one game is better than the other. But I'm personally having more fun with OFPDR because the gameplay experience tends to be more consistent for me than the ultimate highs and extreme lows that I have with ArmA1/2, even with the ACE mod. As long as the bugs get fixed, the modders mod, the editors edit, etc., I think OFPDR could achieve long-term success and be the start of a new series that finds a happy medium between ArmA and Battlefield.
-
10-15-2009, 12:42 AM #14
Re: Difference between this and Arma 2?
Miles I feel your pain, the first thing i did was quit using fraps. I watched everyone chasing their butt trying to optimize Arma2. I read somewhere about this game chewing up your hdd. Now mind you I was going to get a new hdd anyways and also read about how fast solid state drives are. They are expensive,yes...but... i got a 64gb ssd ($149)for my os and this game, the rest I put on my regular hdd. What a difference! it runs like butter with everything on high. Its the hdd that bottlenecks Arma2 not the GPU or cpu or even memory.Granted ,going out to buy an ssd for a game is a little steep but all my stuff runs so much faster now.
-
10-15-2009, 01:13 AM #15
Re: Difference between this and Arma 2?
I have that fairly well covered too though. I have two velociraptors in raid 0 and it is comparable to many SSD's. Not the Intel X25's, but pretty damn good. ArmA2 doesn't always run like crap and I'm guessing that the reason I'm getting only 20FPS on that particular mission is due to bugs either with my catalyst driver or ArmA2 or some combination of the two. Still, even when I'm getting a good 60FPS in the game, the aiming movements and the walking around just don't feel right to me. It feels stuttery and disjointed. I had the same problem with ArmA1.
I still love ArmA1/2 and they are really impressive games. But right now, I tend to look at ArmA more as a cool technology demo, and OFPDR as more of an actual game.
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)










Reply With Quote






Bookmarks