King Of the Hill is the best ARMA mode : FACT,

[Fast]

KOTH is clearly what ARMA is designed for.

Why is anyone playing anything else?

[Captain n00by]

Originally posted by AmericanPie:

Originally posted by извини:

Koth is nothing like COD dude

Bro, ArmA 3 is basically a rip off of COD bro, dude, bro.

Operation Flashpoint: Cold War Crisis (re-released as ArmA: Cold War Assault in 2011) release date: 2001

Battlefield 1942 release date: 2002

Call of Duty release date: 2003

ArmA is older than both, Battlefield and CoD, and still does things neither of the two can do.

Also, unlike CoD and BF, they haven't consolized ArmA to death, infact there was no ArmA game ever ported to consoles outside of maybe OFP Elite (considered part of the non Bohemia OFP series made by Codemasters) and ArmA Tactics, a spin-off title for portables (Nvidia Shield).

[Alaskan Glitch]

Originally posted by =PanzeR=:

Originally posted by Epic Story:

KOTH is clearly what ARMA is designed for.

Why is anyone playing anything else?

Because Koth and team deathmatch modes are designed for CoD and Halo Kids.
I Hate KOTH, Its a call of duty and BF game mode, and doesnt belong to a realistic combat sim like arma...
ArmA is all about humans vs AI conquering the WHOLE ISLAND, sitting 6 hours straight inside a tank trying to take a AI village with human piloted helicopters suporting you from above.
i suck at pvp and i admit it, but its not because of that that i dont play koth, i hate hearing kids ranting all over the place, and i hate XP and money progression system in a ArmA game (Are you kidding me?) And i hate the fact majority of servers are infantry based and doesnt have team work.
ArmA its a combat simulator for milsim guys like me, dont take me wrong, its my opinion.

And i hate the fact that majority of servers are KOTH and Wasteland, i mean, ArmA has so much to offer,its gives you the option to pilot fighters, combat choppers, driving tanks and explore the WHOLE island, why everyone think only about pvp and who has the most kills? ArmA inst that, its a sandbox game to complete objectives and drive vehicles in a combined arms operation. Please leave teh KOTH and TD to CoD.
i say again: no offense and its just my opinion mate.
Kudos

I agree that KOTH and Team Deathmatch type games are a very simplistic versions of the military. It is for those who do not want to think, just shoot.

Arma III is indeed much more complicated and nuanced with the ability to focus beyond a single objective and make it an immersive experience, but "realistic" it is not.

Arma III is not like CoD, PUBG, or other arena-type FPS games. Arma III gives players the ability to think strategically, which you cannot do in those other FPS games. What really separates Arma III from all those other military type games is that Arma III can become any of those other military type games and much more, but none of those other military type games can become like Arma III.

[Alaskan Glitch]

Originally posted by noobean:

Originally posted by AmericanPie:

Bro, ArmA 3 is basically a rip off of COD bro, dude, bro.

Operation Flashpoint: Cold War Crisis (re-released as ArmA: Cold War Assault in 2011) release date: 2001

Battlefield 1942 release date: 2002

Call of Duty release date: 2003

ArmA is older than both, Battlefield and CoD, and still does things neither of the two can do.

Also, unlike CoD and BF, they haven't consolized ArmA to death, infact there was no ArmA game ever ported to consoles outside of maybe OFP Elite (considered part of the non Bohemia OFP series made by Codemasters) and ArmA Tactics, a spin-off title for portables (Nvidia Shield).

The only military-type game similar to OFP, but released first, that I am aware was Delta Force by Nova Logic. That was first released in 1998, but the 1999 release of Delta Force 2 is when it became very popular. Delta Force used a 512 meter square map that simply repeated every 512 meters, but at least it wasn't an arena-type game. Like all the other arena FPS games, however, there was no strategy involved with Delta Force. Just run and shoot. That is where OFP and Arma III separated themselves from the rest of the pack.

[Fast]

Originally posted by DUX SH:

Bottom Line: It's the people that make games fun for the most part, and the people today suck AYESSS! They are wound tight, have no sense of humor, take the internet seriously, and are dorky as fuuuuuuuuhhhhhhkkkkk!

I...I....I AM... I AM ALIVE!!!

[Aleks]

Originally posted by Epic Story:

Originally posted by DUX SH:

Bottom Line: It's the people that make games fun for the most part, and the people today suck AYESSS! They are wound tight, have no sense of humor, take the internet seriously, and are dorky as fuuuuuuuuhhhhhhkkkkk!

I...I....I AM... I AM ALIVE!!!

oh ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥

[Captain n00by]

Originally posted by Alaskan Glitch:

Originally posted by noobean:

Operation Flashpoint: Cold War Crisis (re-released as ArmA: Cold War Assault in 2011) release date: 2001

Battlefield 1942 release date: 2002

Call of Duty release date: 2003

ArmA is older than both, Battlefield and CoD, and still does things neither of the two can do.

Also, unlike CoD and BF, they haven't consolized ArmA to death, infact there was no ArmA game ever ported to consoles outside of maybe OFP Elite (considered part of the non Bohemia OFP series made by Codemasters) and ArmA Tactics, a spin-off title for portables (Nvidia Shield).

The only military-type game similar to OFP, but released first, that I am aware was Delta Force by Nova Logic. That was first released in 1998, but the 1999 release of Delta Force 2 is when it became very popular. Delta Force used a 512 meter square map that simply repeated every 512 meters, but at least it wasn't an arena-type game. Like all the other arena FPS games, however, there was no strategy involved with Delta Force. Just run and shoot. That is where OFP and Arma III separated themselves from the rest of the pack.

Yes, Delta Force was the first open world military shooter, but as you say it wasn't all that realistic. It took OFP to re-define how a open world military shooter should be like. There was also Rainbow Six, which can be considered the first real tactical shooter, but it was more CQB based. There was also Wargasm, probably the first combined arms shooter made.

[Alaskan Glitch]

Originally posted by noobean:

Originally posted by Alaskan Glitch:

The only military-type game similar to OFP, but released first, that I am aware was Delta Force by Nova Logic. That was first released in 1998, but the 1999 release of Delta Force 2 is when it became very popular. Delta Force used a 512 meter square map that simply repeated every 512 meters, but at least it wasn't an arena-type game. Like all the other arena FPS games, however, there was no strategy involved with Delta Force. Just run and shoot. That is where OFP and Arma III separated themselves from the rest of the pack.

Yes, Delta Force was the first open world military shooter, but as you say it wasn't all that realistic. It took OFP to re-define how a open world military shooter should be like. There was also Rainbow Six, which can be considered the first real tactical shooter, but it was more CQB based. There was also Wargasm, probably the first combined arms shooter made.

There is nothing realistic about Arma III either. If you are sitting at a computer using a mouse and a keyboard to control software then you can be assured that "realism" has absolutely nothing to do with it.

OFP, Arma II, and Arma III did indeed change how FPS are played. For the first time they developed maps that encompassed multiple square kilometers. Nobody did that before BI. Then they opened it up for end-users to develop their own missions. While lots of games allow end-users to create their own content, it gave OFP, Arma II, and Arma III the fexibility to please a wide variety of people with different interests. That is why Arma III is still going strong 5 years after it was released.

I also owned Wargasm, and enjoyed it immensely. However, when OFP was released I was hooked immediately. I really hate arena-type games. They are too restricting/confining, and do not allow for strategic planning. Those kinds of games bore me after just a few hours play.

With OFP, Arma II, and Arma III you actually have to think before you act.

[Captain n00by]

Originally posted by Alaskan Glitch:

Originally posted by noobean:

Yes, Delta Force was the first open world military shooter, but as you say it wasn't all that realistic. It took OFP to re-define how a open world military shooter should be like. There was also Rainbow Six, which can be considered the first real tactical shooter, but it was more CQB based. There was also Wargasm, probably the first combined arms shooter made.

There is nothing realistic about Arma III either. If you are sitting at a computer using a mouse and a keyboard to control software then you can be assured that "realism" has absolutely nothing to do with it.

OFP, Arma II, and Arma III did indeed change how FPS are played. For the first time they developed maps that encompassed multiple square kilometers. Nobody did that before BI. Then they opened it up for end-users to develop their own missions. While lots of games allow end-users to create their own content, it gave OFP, Arma II, and Arma III the fexibility to please a wide variety of people with different interests. That is why Arma III is still going strong 5 years after it was released.

I also owned Wargasm, and enjoyed it immensely. However, when OFP was released I was hooked immediately. I really hate arena-type games. They are too restricting/confining, and do not allow for strategic planning. Those kinds of games bore me after just a few hours play.

With OFP, Arma II, and Arma III you actually have to think before you act.

Well, it's more about gameplay mechanics - inertia simulation, movement speed, vehicle physics, damage inflicted by gun shots, weapon recoil, commanding functions, etc. ArmA does not play like your typical arcade shooter, and that's why we like it. As for "being in the game" - wait some years that VR catches on. Even Counter-Strike, a fairly arcadey shooter, feels like a almost totally different game with VR.

Might be worth mentioning Project IGI here too, as one of the pioneers of semi-realistic tac shooters with huge, endless maps, but it was also a single person only game, not a squad shooter like OFP was. It was this game that made me interested into military gear, as I was more interested in fantasy/sci-fi shooters before that. Agreed that the extensive mission editing and modding capabilities is what gives the ArmA series a huge advantage over other shooters.

To each their own, personally, I enjoy both, fast paced arena shooters as well as slow paced tactical shooters. They may not have much in common in plain sight, but they do have some common ground, namely that they're both demanding to play. I prefer hard games to easy games, regardless of genre. I'm actually the least interested in your common, mainstream games, the type of console-oriented (and I *do* like console, or arcade, style games) FPS like Call of Duty (first one was fine, then it went downhill), Battlefield (copied CoD too much for it's own good, it's now just another watered-down shooter with good graphics but lame gameplay), Ghost Recon (how do you go from a tense tac shooter to a GTA-like arcade game?), Rainbow Six (first three games were amazing, afterwards it became really watered down), etc. I respect ArmA 3 in this regard, as it still keeps a lot of what made it's predecessors good, not becoming a totally watered down shooter "for the masses" (although Day-Z mod made it a popular franchise, for better or worse).