Poll: ARMA 2 vs CoD Series (Realism vs Arcade Style)

[GamerPhate]

So being a fan of all game styles, I do enjoy a good FPS from time to time. I had enjoyed some of things they did with the Call of Duty series with the new version as far as trying to add some level of realism to the material types with physics and such. However, once I tried ARMA 2, all my thoughts about how real Call of Duty could be went out the window. ARMA 2 is truly epic in scale, in the sense that, if you walk from the base to each mission you are going to be spending hours traversing rugged terrain, woodlands, fields and cities. You had better hope that there is a chopper ready to lift you into the IZ, or there is a vehicle you can drive near by so that you can at least get there in a few minutes.

But ARMA 2 is likely the most realistic FPS that is on the market ( so real the actual military uses moded versions for training). And although CoD is fun to play, I think I really am drawn into the realistic style of ARMA 2. But I guess my question to you is, have you tried both of these styles of games, and which do you prefer, the arcade style FPS or the realistic style? And as a side note, I do like TF2 ftw for non-realistic shooter

 

[ElephantGuts]

Funny I should come across this thread, I was just playing ArmA 2 about a minute ago.

Anyway, I've played both and I enjoy both. There's plenty of room for all kinds of FPSs, as long as they're good. I can't decide between them, though sims like ArmA do have the spectacular benefit of being free of annoying little 6 year olds.

 

[Fraught]

I do enjoy Call of Duty far more than I do enjoy ARMA.

That is all.

 

[YuheJi]

Outside of the obviously unrealistic games (TF2, UT3, etc.) I generally prefer the more realistic games. I spent years playing Red Orchestra, and I enjoy ArmA 2 as well. And the more realistic games tend not to have immature mic spammers and whatnot.

 

[ThisTypeofThinking]

Well, I play CoD4 (as the only CoD game I ever liked) and I love it. However I love it for the hardcore mode only. Where it rivals if not betters ArmA 2's realism.

Hah, that's funny.

 

[WrongSprite]

Beep beep beep, versus thread alert.

Anyways, I'd take ARMA any day of the week, it's way more fun.

 

[GamerPhate]

Funny I should come across this thread, I was just playing ArmA 2 about a minute ago.

Anyway, I've played both and I enjoy both. There's plenty of room for all kinds of FPSs, as long as they're good. I can't decide between them, though sims like ArmA do have the spectacular benefit of being free of annoying little 6 year olds.

That is one of the primary reasons I like playing ArmA 2 is that lack of brats as well

 

[GamerPhate]

I do enjoy Call of Duty far more than I do enjoy ARMA.

That is all.

Fair enough. Although a little justification would be nice, but this is indeed what I want to hear from people, boldly stating an opinion. But please, give us a reason you feel that way too, so we can relate

 

[mjhhiv]

Well, I play CoD4 (as the only CoD game I ever liked) and I love it. However I love it for the hardcore mode only. Where it rivals if not betters ArmA 2's realism.

Ummm, really?

I'm questioning whether or not you've actually played Arma 2.

 

[GamerPhate]

Well, I play CoD4 (as the only CoD game I ever liked) and I love it. However I love it for the hardcore mode only. Where it rivals if not betters ArmA 2's realism.

Have you tried playing ARMA 2 on Veteran? It turns off the GPS .. you have no idea where you start.. where you are going.. or anything. You have to primarily navigate by the terrain. You have to use your compass and rely on your navigational skills, and all the street signs are in Russian.. so it really doesn't help you much, lol.

 

[GamerPhate]

None of these I prefer original Red Orchestra for realism (the new steam one is shit). I play Cod4 for non realistic pew pew.

Haven't tried Red Orchestra yet. So you have played ARMA 2 for sure, and it can not compare?

 

[gh0ti]

I'm always a bit dubious about 'realism' when staring into a computer screen and hacking away rapidly at a keyboard, but I still enjoy a good simulation.

Having said that, CoD 4 is a far better game than ARMA. What trips up ARMA and similar games is that they seem to spend so long researching the intricate details of every little thing they want to include in their game, they forget the critical question "Is this going to be fun to play?"

 

[xHaroldx]

ive played operation flashpoint and i liked it, havnt really tried arma, but in the end, i just have more fun playing serious 5v5 clanmatches on cod4 pc then i would ever have on a "realism" sim.

 

[GamerPhate]

I'm always a bit dubious about 'realism' when staring into a computer screen and hacking away rapidly at a keyboard, but I still enjoy a good simulation.

Having said that, CoD 4 is a far better game than ARMA. What trips up ARMA and similar games is that they seem to spend so long researching the intricate details of every little thing they want to include in their game, they forget the critical question "Is this going to be fun to play?"

Well CoD4 might be more fun if you like straight hard core action. However, Arma 2 isn't about jumping straight into the line of fire either. You really do not want to run out an go JIHAD on them as you are going to get gunned down, and it is a long way back. So, the immersion factor of realism sets in more with ARMA 2 in the sense that if you are looking for a real battlefield simulation it will meet your needs. But you are correct, the more realistic a game gets, sometimes it takes away much of the fun. But that is the point of this comparison, to compare realism to straight action orientated games.

 

[GamerPhate]

ive played operation flashpoint and i liked it, havnt really tried arma, but in the end, i just have more fun playing serious 5v5 clanmatches on cod4 pc then i would ever have on a "realism" sim.

If you have not tried ARMA 2 .. you do not know hehe. It is the realism sim... hehe. But if realism doesn't really concern you disregard it, but if you want to see what it is really like, give it a go

 

[gh0ti]

I'm always a bit dubious about 'realism' when staring into a computer screen and hacking away rapidly at a keyboard, but I still enjoy a good simulation.

Having said that, CoD 4 is a far better game than ARMA. What trips up ARMA and similar games is that they seem to spend so long researching the intricate details of every little thing they want to include in their game, they forget the critical question "Is this going to be fun to play?"

Well CoD4 might be more fun if you like straight hard core action. However, Arma 2 isn't about jumping straight into the line of fire either. You really do not want to run out an go JIHAD on them as you are going to get gunned down, and it is a long way back. So, the immersion factor of realism sets in more with ARMA 2 in the sense that if you are looking for a real battlefield simulation it will meet your needs. But you are correct, the more realistic a game gets, sometimes it takes away much of the fun. But that is the point of this comparison, to compare realism to straight action orientated games.

What I forgot to include is that this pursuit of realism (often) also removes layers of polish from the end result. CoD feels well-oiled, slick, professional, whilst ARMA can feel amateurish and fragile.