Talk:Arma 2

Video games Stub‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Stub

This article has been rated as Stub-class on the project's quality scale.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Melee (game terminology) (0 participants)
Solo leveling: Unlimited (2 participants)
Game Sack (3 participants)
Delibird (10 participants)
Godzilla: Monster of Monsters (4 participants; relisted)
Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters (4 participants; relisted)
Araya (video game) (3 participants; relisted)
Chao (Sonic the Hedgehog) (7 participants; relisted)
Crazy Bus (11 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Arma 2

Operation flashpoint 2 is in competition with ARMA 2 from bohemia. Arma 2 is very similiar in style and feel of OFP2DR, however the game arma 2 has a more simulated look to it and seems to be less "arcady". Both games are popular with military enthusiasts, and offer a more complete miliary style FPS experience. Both games are sure to be a hit with the genre populists. "Fish" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.186.223.23 (talk) 03:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

++++

Yes, but OFP2 is from a completely different developer and it is therefore unsuitable as a link. Perhaps one can say that a rival developer is working on something similar, but they are rivals, like BMW and Audi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.36.247 (talk) 17:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

++++

I think this article has been vandilised. Strongly doubt its going to be released in 2077 and require a 4.76ghz CPU and "one weapon type". Atleast I hope so :) 165.86.71.20 (talk) 04:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted. Five first edits of the page in 15th April were all vandalism from different IP's. Hamarainen (talk) 09:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Box Art

I think we should change the box art. We don't even know that is the real box art. For now, until we get confirmation from the official website, we should just stick to the logo. Legend6 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Well, the box art is from 505 Games website (official publisher for ArmA 2). I doubt they would create a fake image and put it on their website. Hamarainen (talk) 09:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the box art NFUMR and NFVGCoB issue ... Dwarden (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bigfoot?

That part in the feature sections seems like vandalism by an OFPE player.99.141.59.241 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

++++

There is supposedly a Bigfoot in the game, but is not necessary important enough to be mentioned. Blackhawk234 (talk) 22:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a bigfoot mentioned on the official site, under the civilian link, it talks about the world of arma2 and the civilians and then states several key facts under bullet points, and under one of the facts it says there has been rumored to be a bigfoot raoming the world of chernarus. (personally I'm sure it will be a easter egg type thing for the players to try and find bigfoot, certain time of day only or certain date only.)

Organized the Weapons/Vehicles section

I don't feel that a hierarchical section layout is the best way to display the Weapons and Vehicles subsections of this article. Since this is merely a list of items with very little information attached to each element (some had minor relatively unimportant points of information not necessary for your average reader) I have merged them into a series of tables which make proper use of the space making the entire page significantly easier to read. Forgotten Lords (talk) 21:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Platforms

The only 100% confirmed platform is PC Windows. The official site also used to state a further unspecified next generation console with the release date of to be determined. However this information was pulled off the site recently, so I believe we should just stick to confirmed facts rather than speculations and simply not disclose anything other than PC as a platform until further details are revealed. DeadfastCZ (talk) 21:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-Reply-

If you look on the official forums though, you'll note that an XB360 version thread is STICKIED in the official general discussion for ARMA2, whereas there is no such PS3 thread.

I think it would be weird for the devs to make it a sticky in the official forum since that kinda indicates there will be a 360 version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.141.251 (talk) 07:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"true successors"?

I'm aware of the bitter fighting between Code Masters and BI regarding naming rights- but as the courts ruled that Code masters had the rights to call it's title the 'sequel', why is this line in the article under "missilaneous"

Could you give a link to that court ruling? According to BIS Press Release In the license agreement, Bohemia Interactive expressly reserved the exclusive right to develop sequels to the original OFP game. Hamarainen (talk) 09:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The original Operation Flashpoint (OFP) was developed by Bohemia Interactive Studios (who own the Real Virtuality engine) and published by Codemasters (who own the Operation Flashpoint brand). ArmA and ArmA2 are the true technological successors to OFP. Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising is Codemasters' independently-developed 'sequel'" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.179.163.66 (talk) 12:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We all already know that...what i was getting at is why is it dubbed the "True" successor? Code masters owns the title and claims they are making the successor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.179.163.66 (talk) 00:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. It's not the "true" successor. It's a game made by the original developers of OF. Also, independently developed 'sequel' is weasely. OFDR is the sequel. Different developers, but it's the sequel. I'm going to change both now. Bakarocket (talk) 23:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should read a bit of history before you actually do this edit. 'ArmA 2' is considered by many fans to be the spiritual successor of 'Operation Flashpoint' and was till 2003/2004 offically named 'Operation Flashpoint 2'. After Bohemia Interactive and Codemasters ended their deal it was dubbed 'Game 2' and wasn't heard about until Bohemia Interactive announced 'ArmA: Armed Assault'. In their eyes ArmA: Armed Assault was considered a "waiting game" for the upcoming 'Game 2', something to please the fans while they completed 'Game 2'. ArmA: Armed Assault got released and started completing Game 2 which now got the official name ArmA 2.

It's not till recently Codemasters decided to start their own development of Operation Flashpoint 2: Dragon Rising. However, previous agreements with Codemasters and Bohemia Interactive states that it is only Bohemia Interactive that can develop a sequel, hence it can't be considered as a official sequel (also why they removed the numer 2 in their title). Rewrite it instead of removing all traces.. --84.202.208.245 (talk) 12:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ARMA 2 vs. ArmA 2

As you might have noticed I've moved the page from ArmA 2 to ARMA 2. The reason is that this is the way the developers - Bohemia Interactive - always write the name. DeadfastCZ (talk) 12:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArmA 2 vs. Armed Assault 2

I know it's nitpicking, but towards the start of the article, a section says "ArmA 2 (often incorrectly referred to as Armed Assault 2)"

Though the developers have been using the "ArmA 2" abbreviation formally, it is not incorrect to use the name Armed Assault. The predecessor was formally named ArmA: Combat Operations, but was more often referred to as Armed Assault: Combat Operations. The statement made towards the beginning is incorrect info, and is much more of a bold statement that can't be supported; since it is claiming the use of the full name is incorrect, rather than it just being the full name.

I vouch that the term incorrect stop being used, as it appears to be giving many people the wrong idea about not only ArmA/Armed Assault 2, but it's predecessor also. 24.80.177.137 (talk) 19:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the developers, Armed Assault 2 is actually incorrect: http://www.bistudio.com/developers-blog/arma-2-the-name-tale_en.html --90.231.145.254 (talk) 14:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's excessive nitpickery, as "incorrect" doesn't mean "horribly wrong and you'll die if you call it that". It just means it's not the correct name, which is true. Arma1 was released as ArmA: Armed Assault in most of the world, and ArmA: Combat Operations in North America. Thus Armed Assault can be considered an officially acceptable name for that title. The developers themselves posted a lengthy explanation of the name for ARMA 2 though, and it has never been referred to Armed Assault 2 by the developers or publishers. People searching for information about Armed Assault 2 will therefore be unlikely to find official information about it. As an analogy, lots of idiots refer to Microsoft Windows as Windoze or similar; although everyone understands what is meant, it's bad practice to encourage it because you won't find any official information from Microsoft that ever refers to it under that name.

To me, Armed Assault 2 should be treated as a slang name. It's the sequel to Armed Assault, but there is no product called Armed Assault 2. 150.101.174.148 (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Factions

Is there any more information avaliable for the factions section? I.E. the intentions of each faction, the "pairings" (Like Universal Petroleum vs. PLAV in Mercenaries 2), whether the player fights for/against them, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FlashHawk4 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

US Release Date

Why isn't there a release date for US, is it not anounced yet or is it not going to be released in the US? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.177.230.218 (talk) 14:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BI wiki says 26th June. Not sure if that's official information. Hamarainen (talk) 15:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone clear up the United States release date. It appears to be the Steam only release date, but not an actual date where the game will be sold at stores in the US. Spitfire8520 (talk) 16:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance of adding a separate steam release date of 30th June? this is different to the EU, US and CZ release dates, so I thought it'd be ood to do that.Floorhugger (talk) 11:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UK Shipping Update

Got an update to confirm the stores will have the game, however the UK's largest online retailers may have difficulty as a result of both the royal mail strike and in-store processing issues.Twobells (talk) 14:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Whoever deleted the previous entry is out of order and could constitute bias.Twobells (talk) 14:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone I know had their copies shipped today, from Game, Gamestation, and Amazon. I know that's not proof or anything but I don't think it's notable really anyway. 82.19.2.83 (talk) 23:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]