Jump to content

Talk:Arma: Armed Assault

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Um.. hello??? An expansion has been released!

[edit]

It's called Queen's Gambit, why is there no information of it?

Look [1] and [2] Samrulez91 18:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Screenshots" section

[edit]

Do we really need this section? The only screenshot that is in there is entitled "night", which when viewed appears mostly black anyway. Brophmeister 03:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1.05 Patch Released.

[edit]

Deleted.

This really does not belong in Wikipedia. Use the game's own websites / wikis.

Can we get around that by saying "The current version is 1.05, with 1.07 in the beta stage"? Brophmeister 03:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking about 5 games!

[edit]

Edited By Victor on 3/3/07

  • There is Operation Flashpoint (OFP) the original game from 2001

The XBox Version of OFP called "Operation Flashpoint: Elite"

Both the XBox Version and VBS improved the OFP Engine.
For example: The OFP Engine now supports "High Dynamic Range Lighting". We know that feature from "Half Life 2: Lost Coast".

Over the years the fans of OFP created tons of addons, mods, missions and stuff to keep the game alive.
Now Bohemia Interactive Studio (BIS) is on its way to release "Armed Assault", an re-newed OFP including

  • The new engine
  • New campaign incl. new island
  • New multiplayer (including "join in progress")
    • And much more!

Operation Flashpoint needs the ™ mark and something like this needs adding:

Codemasters® is the registered trademark of Codemasters® Operation Flashpoint™ and its Logo are trademarks of Codemasters®. All other copyrights or trademarks are the property of their respective owners.

However I believe this section of text may be wrong:
Due to legal issues between BIS and Codemasters, the original publishers of Operation Flashpoint, Codemasters owns the intellectual property to the game and should instead read:

It is believed that Codemasters®, the original publishers of Operation Flashpoint™ (OFP), owns the intellectual property to the name Operation Flashpoint™. While BIS owns the intellectual property of the software used in all released versions of OFP


Xbox

[edit]

The xbox introduced the grass to flashpoint, which is what is most noticeable in Arma —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.216.130 (talk) 16:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And now lets talk about "OFP2".

[edit]

Edited By Victor on 3/3/07

First of all: There is NO(!) OFP2 coming from BIS. The "Next Generation Game" of BIS currently has no name!

The rights of the name "Operation Flashpoint" belong to Codemasters, the publishers of the original OFP. And they decided to create an "OFP2" (There are now more information about this game available)

=> Again the is NO OFP2 coming from BIS the creators of OFP1

Second of all: The "Next Generation Game" of BIS is not a new OFP. The new game features a fully dynamic war, which runs on its own. (Its the next step of evolution in war simulation.) http://www.bistudio.com/presspages/pcpressrelease.html

Publisher

[edit]

Edited By Victor on 3/3/07

Let me just clarify this. Armed Assault is not going to be published by IDEA games. IDEA games is a group of developers, and sources inside Bohemia Interactive Studios have told websites such as OFPEC that IDEA games are not publishers. This happened after false speculation. If you need to check out Armed Assault Zone, or OFPECfor proof, then please do so. Until then, try not to speculate.

If you have any info to prove me wrong, please provide it.

--Peidu 20:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you check out Idea's website, http://www.idea-games.com and http://www.idea-games.com/index_main.php?id=projects , they are the ones claiming that they presented Armed Assault. They also have Bohemia Interactive's logo on their site. Looks pretty convincing.

--Amarak_Jeeprs--


Cleaned up

[edit]

Edited and abridged. Removed "IDEA games" reference. IDEA games isn't a publisher.

--Gordonf238



Fan Sites

[edit]

I can see this quickly getting out of hand, considering the amount of fan sites listed, and the fact that Armed Assault hasn't been released yet. I think if anymore are put up then the least relevant or smallest site should be removed.--Peidu 21:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing the whole fan-site section. It's totally inappropriate for an encyclopedia, and none of the other major games I checked had any in theirs. --Frescard 17:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll probably readd it in context; a lot of these sites are developer/editor sites that provide information not available on the community wiki. They're relevant in so far as they provide information about the game without being blind sycophancy as most people consider fansites to be. Professor Ninja 14:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First Person Shooter classification? i think not

[edit]

in my opinion , Armed Assault is a "military simulation" with an emphasis on simulation . why? not only is it clearly much much more realistic (so much so that militaries are using a modified version of this very series as a simulator) , but it also encompasses far more then a First Person shooter. anyone care to comment? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.26.77.120 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

It maybe a simulation, but to me it is still a computer game which comes under the first/third person shooter category because thats what it is. 172.207.250.18 17:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic Ace Combat and Microsoft Flight Simulator are the same genres. I don't think so. Professor Ninja 14:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Shooter" has connotations that are untrue for this game. But it's still a game, by all means... To about the same extent as Flight Simulator X is; there is just a bit more action, and a few more abstractions in the peripheral parts of it. I agree with the suggestion of 1st/3rd person military sim, (sim and game are NOT mutually exclusive) but I guess mr 172.207.250.18 might wish to insist on at least calling it "1st/3rd person military game" --MaHuJa 07:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Its a first person shooter... the game is played mostly through a first person viewpoint, and you shoot things. How you shoot things and how difficult it is to shoot things is irrelevant.

- From First_person_shooter Wiki FPS ref: "A first-person shooter (FPS) is a video game that renders the game world from the visual perspective of the player character and tests the player's skill in aiming guns or other projectile weapons. In the modern era of video games, key technologies such as 3D graphics, online play, and modding were first showcased by FPS." At first glance, it would be fair to say that ArmA is a FPS. However, the origin of the game and its (obviously) close ties with VBS2, mean that the game is much more (and in some ways, much less) than your typical FPS. I think the tactical shooter tag is okay, although could possibly put a link in for "simulation" as well. Icemotoboy 05:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weapons list

[edit]

Does somebody want to add a list of weapons and equipment?

I think that would be a bit over the top. Especially since we have a link to the Bohemia Wiki, which has all this information already. --Frescard 01:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image removal

[edit]

I have reverted the edit which removed that screenshot. There are a number of IP addresses removing it for various reasons quoted in their edit summaries, and from the style of the summaries I believe them to be operated by the same user or same small group of users. Your reasons for removing the image may be valid, however it is clear that other users disagree with you, therefore you must open a discussion here on the talk page. Further removal of the image without discussion I will class as vandalism, and the IP addresses will be warned. Please discuss, thankyou :) SGGH speak! 16:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Server Capacity

[edit]

I just visited the article, and it looks like an interesting game. A couple points that I think the article should answer but doesn't do very well.

  • Player capacity - it is mentioned that it is limited only by the server, but that doesn't really say much. If the server requires 25% cpu utilization to support 1 player, that's a 4 player max. If the server requires 2% cpu utilization, its a 50 player max. And of course that says nothing of other issues (network, disk and so on ). A little more detail on player numbers would be valuable.
CPU utilization depends on CPU, doesn't it? 100+ players anyway, all up to server and its connection.
  • Weaponry - I see there was another bullet on this above. I agree, it would be overy the top to list all supported weaponry. But there doesn't seem to be anything on this point. For instance, i'm not even sure if this is just an infantry game, armor and infantry, armor infantry and air... is sea included? How many weapons are modelled, and so on.

64.174.34.254 15:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weaponry, good point about it not being the in article. Although I think generic types should be recorded rather than specific vehicles and weapons. Icemotoboy 05:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

Somebody keeps adding a "references needed" tag to the article, probably not realizing that references are only required if the statements inside the article are likely to be challenged: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation" (emphasis in the original guidelines).

Since we haven't seen any controversy about any points stated in the article so far, I don't really see where the need for that reference tag stems for.

If the person who keeps adding the tag has issues with specific statement, then you should bring that up here on the talk page first. --Frescard (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed in general, however I am a firm believer that the opening statement should contain at least one reference. I think the paragraph describing the legal issues with the game should have a reference, given it is not talking about the game itself. Furthermore, I think the initial summary statement is too long. I think a better summary would be to have the following, and put the rest of the text in the article: Icemotoboy (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArmA: Armed Assault (known as ArmA: Combat Operations in North America) is a tactical military first- and third-person shooter which was developed by a 40 member team at Bohemia Interactive (BI), an independent game developer based in the Czech Republic. ArmA is the successor to Operation Flashpoint: Cold War Crisis, featuring a completely overhauled game engine, with enhanced graphics, physics, Multiplayer functionality, scripting capabilities, as well as a wide variety of new units and vehicles.

I agree that the publication information is a bit excessive. That level of detail probably sprang from the fact that there were so many different publishers for the game that people needed a bit of help in the beginning finding out who's selling what. I've taken it out for now. If somebody thinks we still need it, we should think about compacting it somewhat (or link to a relevant Wiki page).
As far as the Arma/GameII/OFP2 issue is concerned, that topic still creates a lot of confusion, and I think it's important to clear that up right away in the intro. I have added two references though, to support those statements. --Frescard (talk) 21:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addons

[edit]

Given that there are now plentiful addons available, and indeed that BIS have announced a "Community Awards 2008" programme to recognize these, I think that a section should be added to the article to note this. I believe its encyclopedic because I think developer support of community projects, particulary as far as running and sponsoring an award programme, is of reasonable interest to future readers in differentiating this game title from others. I would be happy to write one myself, however I am an addon developer so I feel like I have a personal interest in the subject. I think, perhaps, a link to one or two of the known Addon hosting sites (such as armaholic.com and armedassault.info) would add some value to the article. Anyone have any thoughts? Icemotoboy (talk) 05:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Completely overhauled game engine?

[edit]

I have to take issue with the use of the phrase "completely overhauled game engine".

I was and still am an avid fan of OFP, and there is almost a 90% similarity between the engine used in OFP and ArmA. The only thing ArmA noticeably does better is the graphics. Physics, squad commands, movement, interactions, shooting, driving, flying and the overall feeling haven't been touched almost at all.

I think this should at least be clarified. Whether BIS intended for it to be a completely new engine or not, I don't really care. But I think we should avoid advertising for game developers. F33bs (talk) 08:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have changed it from "completely overhauled" to "overhauled". Icemotoboy (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Starforce/Securom

[edit]

I removed the category to category:Games protected with Starforce as this was only for the EU region, and that protection was removed with patch 1.14Icemotoboy (talk) 23:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simulation Aspects Section

[edit]

I removed a sentence about the Helicopter as it did'nt make sense and claimed there was no full axis of rotation, but there is if auto-hover is turned off. I also added fact templates but a rewrite would be better. What is this section saying ? A comparison with other simulators might be more factual 86.31.54.0 (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I have removed the notes about the missing movement axis for helicopters, as that didn't make any sense to me (and, as it seems, to anybody else), and the one about the "visual acuity" (where objects supposedly get blurrier to closer you get - perhaps time for a new video card?).
If the original author of those additions wants to put them back in, please explain the reasoning those issues here. Frescard (talk) 04:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead Section Clean Up

[edit]

Why the second half of the lead section is filled with this naming controversy info? Shouldn't it be in a separate section and not in introduction? At the end of the day it's pretty irrelevant to the game. --Hamarainen (talk) 09:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on ARMA: Armed Assault. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ARMA: Armed Assault. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on ARMA: Armed Assault. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:ARMA (series) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:50, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arma:_Armed_Assault&oldid=1205335701"