Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Armed Assault comparison

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Armed Assault comparison

    Okay, perhaps I have had my head in the sand, but I recently keep hearing about Armed Assault and was wondering how it stacks up to BF2 PR?

    I heard it is massive but also glitchy, but there are alot of partisans out there so it is hard to get a good neutral option.

    So whats the straight dope?

  • #2
    Re: Armed Assault comparison

    armed A is a tactical Sim. PR is a arcade Sim. Armed A is for the more tactically incline mission objective type person, slow and thought out type game play. You really rely more on your team mates and surroundings to win the battle.

    Read some of the AARs and jump in the TS channles, really good games to be had. If you like the idea of planning the mision out before you actually get into the game then its a great game to try. Its got a nice community that is moding the crap out of missions and add ons.
    that sounds like a good idea trooper.
    -Vulcan

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Armed Assault comparison

      Good questions Donegal...

      Let me give a quick mini AAR to highlight a good example of where PRM differs from Armed Assault.


      TG runs an epic mission on the ARMA server called Evolution. Time in game mirrors real life time and players can come in, play, and leave while the mission still chugs on. There are dozens of objectives that include side missions (ambushing the enemy. Search & Rescue of AI downed pilots, or destrying specific assets) accompanied by the main mission, which is to clear several cities of enemy (AI ) troops...all of which fight handily and capably.

      Last night saw a bunch of us in game pursuing an ambush mission that was supported by dedicated transport ifrom our Blackhawk. Filled with 11 troops and enroute to the site the Blackhawk was shot at by the column we were to ambush. The combat troops bailed out while the chopper skedaddled and landed safely but damaged beyond use. We assembled up, moved out to the ambush location just in time and successfully destroyed the enemy convoy. All very exciting...command exhorting us to get in position, rearm, hide, get ready and boom...ambush hatched successfully. What a great feeling.

      Meanwhile--The Blackhawk doesn't respawn so it must be repaired in order for any unit to reuse this important asset. Mission protocol dictates we repair the bird so after our successful ambush our group was picked up by two or three little birds and transported back to main base (4 min flight) where we formed up a multi vehicle repair convoy that consisted of a lead hmmv, a repair truck, a refueling truck, a stryker with supporting infantry and another hmmv bringing up the rear with additional infantry for support.

      The convoy moved out together, acting as a unified repair and rearm group. We had drivers, gunners and navigators for each vehicle. Our trip overland took 10-15 minutes to make it to the crash site and when we did the chopper was reapaired and as a group we assembled, discussed as a group what to do next and then began combat ops again. We moved overland by HMMV and Stryker to a city about 10 km's away that was occupied by the enemy. Our mission was to take the city. We encountered heavy resistance and each time upon dying would spawn back at main. Our dedicated helo pilots ferried reinforcements from main up to the frontlines, keeping a steady stream of troops arriving at the battlefield.

      Just about this time I disconnected due to the late hour. I had been playing for 5 hours straight but it went by in a blink. The whole experience was incredibly immersive and though I didn't fire a shot in anger during the repair mission ( I was driving the last hmmv) that portion of my evening was some of the most enjoyable gaming I've ever done done. 1:00 a.m. came and I was really bummed I had to quit and get rest for today's work.

      The game is glitchy with a few non critical things but has improved 100% since I first got the German Download back in December. When I first started playing I was plagued with random and frequent disconnects and struggled to find video settings that allowed for great graphics and great gameplay. In 10 or so hours of playing this Arma this weekend I only lost connection once and the lastest patch has done a good job optimizing this game. The good news is there will be continued support for this game, as there was for OFP, so patches will continue to come out making it better and better.

      Play it once you won't go back to PRM.

      By the way...the demo (from what I hear) has several perforance and gameplay issues that have been fully addressed in the latest patches. Demo gives you a taste of how the game works but you can't really get a good feel for it unless you have the retail version.
      Last edited by Grunt 70; 06-25-2007, 01:50 PM.
      sigpic
      |TG-1st|Grunt
      ARMA Admin (retired)
      Pathfinder-Spartan 5

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Armed Assault comparison

        Do you play against other players on teams or is this everyone against the AI ?

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Armed Assault comparison

          Grunt has it about right, my issue is the games recommended system requirements I think were made up by a politician, due to them being obvious lies.

          Due to the nature of the game, it will probably never run as smoothly as the BF2 engine for game play. It's basically a co-op tactical "simulation" of players vs. computer AI, so the game will slow down in the bigger fights. Some people are willing to overlook lag and low fps for the style of play evident in the game, I am unfortunately not one of those. If you can handle low fps/lag at times when it is the least convenient in exchange for something approaching a "real" tactical simulation, then you will enjoy this better then PR.

          ArmA has more of a real feeling to it from mission planning and movement systems and the large scope of the maps then PR, no doubt there. PR however is a more refined game to play and enjoy because there are few to no technical issues with it if you are willing to sacrifice the more "realistic feeling" for better gameplay.

          In the end there are pro's and con's for both games, it comes down to what you personally are willing to deal with. In PR there is probably a higher "smacktard quotient" then in ArmA where in ArmA there are more "technicial issues" then will be found in a normal game of PR. It all comes down in the end to what you can better tolerate.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Armed Assault comparison

            I think the "Smacktard" issue exists in any player v player game

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Armed Assault comparison

              Agreed, but a game like ArmA will have a lower % just due to the style of gameplay and the slower "speed" of the game.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Armed Assault comparison

                If its co-op then its basically a different kind of game so I wouldnt place it in competition to pr.
                That AI will make it more cpu intensive then pr, even the most powerfull cpu can struggle with some of the ai war games out at present


                If you find yourself in a fair fight, then you have obviously failed to plan properly.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Armed Assault comparison

                  I just played the demo and for the most part, I was very impressed. The graphics were alright, not stunning, but alright. This was all but forgotten when you get to see such a vast area below you from the air. The AI was very impressive although they had their moments at times. Flying was difficult to say the least, but enjoyable.

                  I do have a few questions however. The names are really starting to confuse me so is Armed Assault the same thing as Armed Assault: Combat Operations? Could somebody bring me up to speed with this whole ArmA thing?


                  Community, not corporation!

                  TG-Irr BetterDeadThanRe(D)

                  Xfire-BetterDeadThanRed1

                  Irregs PR CO

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Armed Assault comparison

                    Originally posted by Sabre_Tooth_Tigger View Post
                    If its co-op then its basically a different kind of game so I wouldnt place it in competition to pr.
                    That AI will make it more cpu intensive then pr, even the most powerfull cpu can struggle with some of the ai war games out at present
                    There is team vs team games in Armed Assault. From what I gather these haven't been played extensively at TG because the player base here is still fairly small (but growing). Go snoop around the ArmedA forums and you can find out more or less whats going on with that game at TG.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Armed Assault comparison

                      Originally posted by Morganan View Post
                      Grunt has it about right, my issue is the games recommended system requirements I think were made up by a politician, due to them being obvious lies.

                      Due to the nature of the game, it will probably never run as smoothly as the BF2 engine for game play. It's basically a co-op tactical "simulation" of players vs. computer AI, so the game will slow down in the bigger fights. Some people are willing to overlook lag and low fps for the style of play evident in the game, I am unfortunately not one of those. If you can handle low fps/lag at times when it is the least convenient in exchange for something approaching a "real" tactical simulation, then you will enjoy this better then PR.

                      ArmA has more of a real feeling to it from mission planning and movement systems and the large scope of the maps then PR, no doubt there. PR however is a more refined game to play and enjoy because there are few to no technical issues with it if you are willing to sacrifice the more "realistic feeling" for better gameplay.

                      In the end there are pro's and con's for both games, it comes down to what you personally are willing to deal with. In PR there is probably a higher "smacktard quotient" then in ArmA where in ArmA there are more "technicial issues" then will be found in a normal game of PR. It all comes down in the end to what you can better tolerate.

                      good points all Morganan.
                      sigpic
                      |TG-1st|Grunt
                      ARMA Admin (retired)
                      Pathfinder-Spartan 5

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Armed Assault comparison

                        Ive tried ArmA and I was impressed with unflinching level of realism in the game. It takes a lot of guts to make a game where action gives way to planning and waiting.

                        There is a time issue in the game. Ive never finished a full round and that in itself is a bit disappointing. The game has less of a jump in a play feel to it, and that is a bit of a turn off because of my limited time.(Hell I havent be able to play PR for about 2 weeks, though my return is soon)

                        Compairing PR to ArmA is not really a great idea. The "Realism is better" crowd will love it to death and more power too them. Still PR has a lot of very good points, including the ability to drop in and play with your buddies for half an hour and still see a ton of action.

                        I say PR has more authentic, favoring the 'feel' of realistic weapons and equipment, while keep a fun, fast paced, yet still tactical game enviorment. It allows for more "Hero Moments", fast paced gun fights and up front action.

                        ArmA has much more realistic game play, only allowing unrealistic game play elements to enter when they are necessary. The game allows those who want to play the slow paced game where they only get one chance to play the way they want.

                        Really, its good both are around. Though the two communties are close, there is come disconnect between the two. Haveing seperate games that fill the roles both groups will give group what they want.
                        I kill terrorist.
                        I do good.
                        I have top score.
                        I a Dutch.

                        -AKA- Snow411

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Armed Assault comparison

                          Originally posted by Betterdeadthanred View Post
                          I just played the demo and for the most part, I was very impressed. The graphics were alright, not stunning, but alright. This was all but forgotten when you get to see such a vast area below you from the air. The AI was very impressive although they had their moments at times. Flying was difficult to say the least, but enjoyable.

                          I do have a few questions however. The names are really starting to confuse me so is Armed Assault the same thing as Armed Assault: Combat Operations? Could somebody bring me up to speed with this whole ArmA thing?
                          Yes
                          sigpic


                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Armed Assault comparison

                            I would say they are two very different approaches to the same end.

                            PR is fun for short "bursts" of action. The rewards are very clear and distinct, but tend to be repetitive ie winning the same map over and over.

                            ArmA requires a whole different approach and playstyle. You can't sign-on for 30 minutes and expect to get that burst of action like you can from PR. Most of the action takes place 5-10 minutes of travel time from your spawn. Travel is a real issue and requires coordination of pilots and drivers. The trade-off is a "real" death penalty. If you go charging into a town and manage to rambo kill 2-3 enemy units, but get killed, you will likely be spending the next 5 minutes in a chopper to get back to the action. Conversely the squad that goes low and slow will setup behind cover, call targets and arrange fall-back positions prior to any enemy engagement to try and assure minimum losses. There is NOTHING in gaming that compares to a TG squad operating in ArmA for tactical realism and shear immersion.

                            To decide if ArmA is right for you begs the question if you can be patient enough (downtime might be 5-30 minutes between kills) and disciplined enough (TS command structure) to enjoy a slower pace that rewards the participants with a high degree of immersion and intensity.


                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Armed Assault comparison

                              Dawolf made a short, but great video that showcases the gameplay:

                              http://www.dawolf.com/dl/arma1.mpg
                              --
                              VI VI VI - the number of the beast

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X