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

[Specter_]

ArmA.

ArmA2 after my exams and as soon as I figure out how to make it not look like a LSD-trip on my 'puter

Spoiler: Brownout in ArmA2 on LSD

(Yeah, I know there's a crosshair, I just installed it and had some testruns. Usually it's turned off)

 

[GamerPhate]

Have you tried playing ARMA 2 on Vetern? It turns off the GPS .. you have no idea where you start.. where you are going.. or anything.

Much like CoD 4's Hardcore mode, then. No map, no way to tell how many bullets are left, no health indicator... The only 'bad' is the unrealistic half of the perks (UAV Jammer, Bomb squad etc.) that stay in Hardcore as well. But that's what the Open Warfare mod is for.

Anyway, you can't judge CoD4 by it's arcade mode because Hardcore is the way it was meant to be played where all you got is your eyes and ears. And reflexes.

Indeed, and actually I do want to give CoD4 it's credit for what it is and has done for FPS. And perhaps by picking one of the few arcade style FPS that actually does try to incorporate some realism into it like CoD4 has, it has made this comparison a little bit tough. I do not want to downplay the Hardcore modes of CoD4, but if you do like that, you would LOVE Arma 2, you can make your own scenarios in game.. you can have 30 human players versus the AI .. it is very fun

 

[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.

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.

Amateurish and fragile ? why? Is it choppy on your PC ? Turn down the settings. Are the models not glossy and cartoony colored the way you like? If the action doesn't feel well-oiled that is because you are going commando and not working in a squad.

 

[ratix2]

sorry, but even on hardcore cod4 isnt anymore realistic than most shooters. first off the bullet penetration is buggered up the ass (a barretta m92 can go through several feet of concrete without losing ANY muzzle velocity, yet a barret m95 cant pierce a flimsy metal barrel?). second is the health system, sorry, but in REAL LIFE, if you get shot you dont just wait about 10-15 seconds for your health to recover. and this isnt even getting into the perks system, the fact that the soliders armor is pretty much non-existent and about half a dozen other things that make cod4 a sorry excuse for a realistic shooter.

never got into arma much so i cant comment on its realism, but i will say that if you want to play a truly realistic, engaging, fun online shooter play red orchestra.

 

[cocoadog]

ya arma is fun, a little buggy in some places... but seriously do they really need to utilize nearly every button on the keyboard?

 

[chromewarriorXIII]

I have never played ARMA or ARMA 2. Maybe I should look into them, they seem like games I would enjoy.

EDIT: Scratch that. It's PC only which means no ARMA for me.

 

[Tharwen]

Where's the "I've only played one" option?

 

[GamerPhate]

Where's the "I've only played one" option?

Was just thinking about that as I was reviewing this.. going to try to add that now..

EDIT - Well I added it to the list. .I do not know if will show up now or not though.

 

[GamerPhate]

ya arma is fun, a little buggy in some places... but seriously do they really need to utilize nearly every button on the keyboard?

LOL well.. maybe .. there are so many damn commands you can do, I guess so, lol. Although I guess I like to see things like that happen, it forces the game controller designers to come up with new devices to make having that many buttons some how convenient, heh. The best I have seen is the Belkin Nostromo, but would like to find something even better hehe. Although, I do just use the keyboard for the most part.

 

[GamerPhate]

I have never played ARMA or ARMA 2. Maybe I should look into them, they seem like games I would enjoy.

EDIT: Scratch that. It's PC only which means no ARMA for me.

Console only eh? Due to the mod ability of Arma 2 it would be hard for it to come to a consule. And to be honest, I doubt that it ever will as they don't want to have to remove some controls, you use like every key on the keyboard like someone mentioned, lol. But do some searches on youtube, there is a video someone made with like 1500 AI duking it out.. it sold me on the game, lol.

 

[Strategia]

I've never played either, but I have played Red Orchestra and CoD1&2 so I guess that's kinda the same comparison on an older level. I like playing both games, for different reasons. CoD has something of a story, missions, scripted events, characters and such, and that's why I like it - for the campaigns. I wouldn't dream of playing it in MP. (CoD4 maybe, but I'd have to try both it and ArmA first before making that call.) Red Orchestra's single-player mode is a joke, but in MP, it's hectic action and it's just absolutely bloody brilliant. I just love close-quarters firefights with bolt-action rifles and bayonets (SMGs are for noobs, skill > sprays), or tank warfare taking place at ranges of no less than half a mile (or, in some cases, twenty feet).

Tl;dr, I prefer CoD for the singleplayer and the mission-based aspect, I prefer RO for the multiplayer and the gunplay/tank warfare.

 

[GamerPhate]

Arma is a soldier sim. It is not a FPS. Armas kinda joyless, it takes a long time to do anything. Personally I didnt feel the weapons handling was as good as Operation Flashpoints. But I cant comment neither having fired the M4 or being able to run the game on full graphics. But from what I saw the bullets arent super realistic.

Red Orchestra frelled itself by removing locational damage cause the kiddies didnt like it Grrrr. Until thet point it was one of the few games your could break your ankle sprinting over terrain

You could also shoot peoples weapopns out their hands. It had tangible bullet drop & lead time & the only thing it lacked was random jamming

LOL wow sprinting damage.. that is realistic. I love the idea of shooting weapons out of hands or shooting grenades on soldiers and things like that. You do have to admit the AI in Arm2 does react and spot you fairly well. If you are sniping into a squad you can see them scatter, hit the dirt and scan around like they are looking for you. Shoot em in the leg, and they limp and so forth. But you are right though, Arma 2 is a soldier sim.. and like real war, there is alot of marching to do before you get to fire a shot.

As far as the gun jamming, that is interesting to think about an element like that being in the game. And any game could have likely added it since day one. But it is one of those things where you have to ask do you really want to add it and would it make good game play? Lol, they could add so much realism that it gets insane, like you are a soldier but you somehow randomly got sick and so you cough and wheeze and your tired so you might just pass out from marching all night, not to mention those rations you ate were rotten so you might need to spew. The question remains, yes it would be interesting to see a few times, but would it make good game play?

 

[BladeOfAkriloth]

As you said in the OP, they're two different sub-genres of shooters, and genres/sub-genres Shouldn't be compared as "which one is better", for something to be better than some other thing, they must have many similarities, differences being only at the "sliders" chapter. Still, i only played CoD and can not pronounce myself, just needed to speak my mind.

 

[timmytom1]

How about a "bit of both" option?As my question suggests it depends sometimes i like to put my grey matter to the test,other times i just like to shoot stuff and whatch pretty `splosions

 

[Outamyhead]

Haven't played Arma yet, CoD is pretty much the same thing as all the previous incarnations, just better graphics for each sequel.

I'm surprised Operation Flashpoint hasn't been mentioned for realism, pff young'uns.

 

[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.

Amateurish and fragile ? why? Is it choppy on your PC ? Turn down the settings. Are the models not glossy and cartoony colored the way you like? If the action doesn't feel well-oiled that is because you are going commando and not working in a squad.

Nah, it's not choppy or anything, but the animations etc. aren't great and there's a reason many games go the 'cartoonish' model look, i.e. that actually they can be made to react in more convincing ways, show emotion more clearly and so on. Amateurish may be too strong a word, but the game is pretty buggy, which is always a major drawback for me. I just think that going for 'realism' shouldn't necessarily rule out the use of more CG friendly models and animations, if only for the sake of fluidity.