Comments on: ArmA 2 review — complex for its own sake

By: » Modern Warfare 2 added to Steam - DigitalBattle.com

» Modern Warfare 2 added to Steam - DigitalBattle.com — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 20:53:28 +0000

[...] get ArmA 2 with a 50% discount, only $25. If you wanna know if it’s worth it, check out our ArmA 2 review. This entry was posted on Friday, October 23rd, 2009 at 1:53 pm and is filed under Action, DLC, [...]

By: Sam

Sam — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 16:00:27 +0000

wow really reviewer? “However, the graphics are by no means up to “Crysis” standards, nor are the physics. I fact, our high end system had a difficulty keeping up on the high settings, and even on high settings, the game still isn’t a looker.” That is the biggest load of b.s. I have ever heard. Im running a quad core with a radeon 5800 and the game looks beautiful. And while the graphics may not be quite up to crysis level, there is no doubt in my mind that the physics, especially the ballistics, are much better. Sure there are some vehicle GLITCHES, but the overall PHYSICS aren’t the same. next time u should pull your head out of your ass while reviewing a game long enough to actually form a fair opinion of it.

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 05:28:14 +0000

Congrats, this is the most retarded review of Arma 2 I’ve been able to find on the net. I thought IGN’s review was flawed because they just kept on hammering how hard it is but this one topples it. What the reviewer is basically saying is that he is to stupid to learn a game so that’s why it isn’t fun.

That’s like saying chess is a shitty game because there are to many possibilities. Saying that die hard fans will gave trouble playing this is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard a “reviewer” say. How would you know what a die hard fan experiences since you are obviously a noob to the genre and to the series.

Reviewer, stick to COD and have a more mature and experienced reviewer do reviews on games that are harder then crisis of cod. You’re obviously to simple for that.

Shame on you for wasting online space like this.

By: America’s Army 3 review — ruthless reality - Games, News, Reviews and more.

Tue, 14 Jul 2009 05:10:39 +0000

[...] worth it. Mind you, it’s no Counter-Strike, nor Battlefield nor ArmA (read our ArmA 2 review here). As a First Person Shooter, America’s Army 3 is in a whole other ballpark, the realism [...]

By: James Hyde

James Hyde — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 17:11:09 +0000

You can’t give a higher score to a game because of the potential of upcoming patches, or DLC or whatever. It needs to be judged as it is now. Nor can you judge a game based on how good or bad it’s predecessor was.

Actually, we waited until patch 1.02 to review the game, we gave the developers the benefit of the doubt. But it’s still buggy.

By: Trunkz Jr

Trunkz Jr — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 09:49:34 +0000

You say it’s Too complex, even for die hard fans. Just FYI, it’s system has pretty much remained the same since OFP so the die hard fans are by all means not having the trouble that you do.

The very slow pace should actually be an upside and a relief to all the bunny hopping shooters out there.

Requires a lot of patience? I think you just don’t much patience lol

Still buggy, after three patches. Now this is a given of a bad side, but you also don’t know the whole story as to why it was, and i’m guessing you never played ArmA 1 so you don’t know how much better this game was released.

In the end, personally a Fair score for this game would be more like 7.5/10 but with patches has potential to be 8.5 or higher. You should do more research about a game before you play’n'rate, especially this genre (probably the only military sim out there, no OFPDR is not a true m.sim).

Of course, this is your personal opinion, but i’ve been playing these since OFP and tho ArmA1 flopped and would deserve 5.0 no way would this game deserve such a score lool