PC Games Hardware ran benchmarks in Armed Assault 2. In high quality settings the game can't even be run properly on highest-end hardware. In matters of graphical quality ArmA 2 is quite convincing.
Will have to release mods/configs (doing the developers job) to make it playable, just like gta4 and crysis. I wish pc devs werent so lazy and actually took full advantage of the available hardware. They really code like crap considering what is achieved by console devs
You understand that the CryEngine 2 was designed with next-gen hardware in mind right? You also understand that PC devs have to code for multiple setups right, thus increasing their workload for all the Nvidia/ATI GPUs and Intel/AMD CPUs out there? PC devs are anything but lazy.
and yet it wasnt optimised to run efficiently on any hardware :) try and run it without any mods/configs at any great AA and max detail + 1080p. todays hardware should crush it, but still it doesnt. custom configs have to the job that they should have done themselves. Anticipating the future or not, a game should be played, not be dreamt of playing, also since a card such as a 4890 cant accomplish the feat of toppling crysis id say they lied about that.
A race for creating the worst optimized game/engine or something? What an honourfull achievement.
im pretty sure gta iv has that one in the bag
This game isn't as much badly optimized as it is just pushing a lot of stuff on screen.
Idiots. Don't go for high end visuals if you can't produce high end gameplay and reliability. These are games, not paintings.
I bought the first game in the series but won't be buying this for the same reason I refused to buy Crysis. If the developers can't code for the hardware we have now then what is the point? by buying this game you're giving the green light to developers to release sloppy un-optimised code with a 'release now, patch it later' mentality. When developers have this attitude its no wonder their games are pirated - not that its ever right to pirate a game but the developers don't help themselves sometimes.
Don't even try to bring piracy into this.
I think you'll find I did, deal with it
Why do people complain when developers make use of upcoming technologies? They don't leave older hardware out in the cold, they make lower settings available for you, and higher settings available for people who can use it. Everyone seeks the holy grail of "maximum settings," but here's a secrete; maximum settings do not exist for most game engines. There is always another polygon to be drawn. Also, your justification of piracy is weak. "My computer couldn't run the game, so I pirated it. Turns out, it couldn't run the pirated version either."
Exactly, why should developers limit high end things so people feel better about things running maxed out on their bad PCs?
@4.3 My point went sailing over your head, its not about performance its about the games being very broken that leads to gamers becomming disenchanted and not wanting to waste their money buying a game only to find out its bug filled. In regards to performance, don't kid yourself that in a few years it will run any better when you upgrade. I was very much into a flight sim called Lock On but had to run it on low settings. At the time my system wasn't that great so it didn't bother me a great deal as I thought I'd upgrade in the future and get the best from it. A few years later it still runs quite poorly on not even the highest settings on system specs (graphically and processor) that would have still been very much on the drawing board at the time. I have no problem with developers making games that run great on the best possible hardware available at the time but that is not the case with games like Arma.
If it cant be run on todays hardware and yet isnt the most visually/technically impressive thing ever, then why?
Compare this to Operation Flashpoint 2, it looks years ahead of it, the textures are probably 5-8x the resolution of the ones in that, it's probably pushing more units on screen at once too. 100s of detailed fully animated units on screen at once with a long view distance on top of it demands a lot out of hardware. I hate it when people compare everything to some kind of linear shooter with almost nothing on screen at once to something pushing 100x more in scale.
This doesn't even touch Crysis' level of fidelity and yet it runs like molasses on the most high-end setups? And, with that in mind, ZERO support added for CrossfireX/SLI configs? Put this one back in, boys, it's not done yet (or is it?). I don't know if I can play a game that has such massive technical drawbacks. I mean clipping/collision detection errors? REALLY?
I know, I was thinking the same thing. "REALLY NOW?!"
Dont blame the hardware for being lazy when it comes to development
Another nail in ArmA 2's coffin. Its not looking good for this one folks. Too bad, I figured BI would've learned after ArmA's pathetic launch. I am truely dissapointed.
Has anyone complaining here actually tried ArmA2 yet? :)
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.