Quote:
It's alright on it's own, but mostly worth it for DayZ
LMAO! I'm glad you're not going this route OP, Daisy is just child-infested Zombie deathmatch. The standalone game will be much better, but regardless that's such a horrible statement. Daisy is even buggier than ArmA 2, and um, some people want a squad simulator and not zombie deathmatch? Anyway, ArmA 3 is scheduled for later this year (Q3 I think) so if you want to wait, it's not a bad idea. If you do get ArmA 2, get Combined Ops, Play withSIX, and ACE 2. All of this in a private, organized coop match with good custom missions is one of the best gaming experiences one can have.
Keep in mind that ArmA doesn't excel with default content; the coop scenarios are cool, much longer than BF3/CoD's little 10 minute coop missions. The campaign is nothing special but can be fun, but mods/custom missions really bring the most out of ArmA 2. Get to know the mission editor, it's very innovative and has become quite a legend over the years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
funfortehfun
True dat. IMO, graphics aren't as great as Battlefield 3
Graphics don't matter much for this type of game, especially when there's not a huge difference between them. Regardless, ArmA 2's graphics exceed BF3 in a number of ways, specifically polygon count, texture quality, and view distance. However it's time of day settings could use improving, and there are still some graphics bugs left in the engine. This and optimization are what ArmA 3 seemed to be focused on; they scrapped the best features, namely the fully functional 3D editor, ability to put on enemy uniforms to go undercover, and they said there has been "no progress" on the desperately-needed AI improvements.