*******Official Armed Assault 2 thread of official officialness*******

KaneStatton said:
Completely agree but I think if it was purely down to the people working on the game they would release it more 'complete'. Publishers and the like set deadlines and push the game out before its released a good example is AA3.
Click to expand...

Agree with this, must be crushing for a dev to work for years on a game and then when it's released your hit with a torrent of bitching about bugs.
 
i think sympathy has to be given to these type of games though .. ( OF, arma) .. ( your going to tell me its cus they were all the same dev now :P ) ... but with such an expansive game, and such a new release, the ammount of bugs i have personally encountered has been very small.. i think personally the graphics are amasing... If you remember the old crysis pre trailers, the graphics that you could never ever get, it was acheived by very good motion blur, something crysis missed out... arma 2 however has hit the nail on the head with motion blur... vegetation aswell, is very good...
 
i'm really considering getting this, but there's a couple of things putting me off.

1, is it a lot better than the first.
2, whats the multiplayer mode like, i.e amount of server and players.
 
stifler said:
i'm really considering getting this, but there's a couple of things putting me off.

1, is it a lot better than the first.
2, whats the multiplayer mode like, i.e amount of server and players.
Click to expand...

There is a lot of servers at the moment with VERY low pings! (15ms sometimes with 22 players). The only downside I've come across at the moment is that there seems to be some sort of FPS limit of 30ish when I'm online.

Also a lot of the servers seem disorganised, people shooting down friendly planes etc, but I'm sure if you went on the OCUK server when theres admins on you'd have a good game.

Can't comment on your first as I didn't play Arma 1, however I have been a fan of op flashpoint etc and it is on par with that whilst being graphically superior.
 
Im really enjoying it so far, first time ive played a real thinking mans fps, actually runs quite well on my rig, of course theres a few minor bugs but im sure theyll be ironed out in due course.
 
rexehuk said:
Answered your own question :D good hunting ;)
Click to expand...

lol i know its under a camo net but I blew up a tank on the road kind of on the spur of the moment and im worried that was the one that was about to deploy the netting lol. I could spend another half hour blowing up every bush in sight....
 
You have to wonder how many of those bitching about bugs on the developers forum are playing a pirated version where that FADE anti-pirat thing is actually messing up their game.
 
rexehuk said:
There is a lot of servers at the moment with VERY low pings! (15ms sometimes with 22 players). The only downside I've come across at the moment is that there seems to be some sort of FPS limit of 30ish when I'm online.

Also a lot of the servers seem disorganised, people shooting down friendly planes etc, but I'm sure if you went on the OCUK server when theres admins on you'd have a good game.

Can't comment on your first as I didn't play Arma 1, however I have been a fan of op flashpoint etc and it is on par with that whilst being graphically superior.
Click to expand...

People are running servers that are not optimised
I did some tweaking on mine and got it to generate a steady 45-47 fps

I have been admining arma 1 / ofp servers for years
 
Buckster said:
you guys must be playing a different game - yes it has a few bugs - but its so much fun to play
Click to expand...

Ive played this quite a lot now. Theres a good atmospheric game in there, but i cant get to it(very often). The AI is so bad(squad especially) that it can end your mission over and over, without fault of your own(the campaign is terrible for for this). The interface is clunky and the controls feel clumsy. The graphics are good considering the size of the play area, but whats the point of a huge play area if its largely empty and runs poorly, even on decent machines. Better to have smaller areas that are nicer looking, run better and have more going on IMHO.
 
Spyke_UK said:
Thank you very much, as i hoped my FPS just running around the "Basic Training" camp has gone from 35-57 upto 55-77! woo hoo!
It was very playable and smooth at mid 30's so now i have a decent increase it's time to up some settings.

Thanks again!
Click to expand...

That's awesome for 4850s :eek: very impressed.

rexehuk said:
Game is unplayable if im honest. The training missions are buggy as hell, the weapon training for the m4 is a joke, the guy gets stuck in an infinite loop and keeps saying the same thing over and over even if you don't select to retake.

On top of this i'm getting multiple crashes on vista sp2 x64, game just freezes and error pops up.

Might give windows 7 a try later on, if that doesn't help then I might just wait a month or two until patches fix it all.
Click to expand...

Happens to me on W& so dont think that will be any luck for u, might get slightly better performance tho...
 
Im finding that the training island, runs way better than the campaign area as theres less going on. Play the campaign and see how that runs too.
 
overall i think its fun, and i will get a lot of time out of it, but im clag i only spent £25 on it.... I think one performance problem in the campaign is that stuff is going on around the map when your not there... i came back to the HQ to find the CO dead, with his men careless to the fact.. as funny as it was it seemed a bit annoying ..
 
How are people upcapping the FPS? I am getting 60 max, with the thing in CCC disabled (Wait for vertical refresh - Always Off)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom