I finally installed and played some last night. Runs pretty decent except for some lag moments. Weopon modeling and details as well as sounds are outstanding. The new cover system is really cool. Lots of detail and options for cover and hiding in cover is going to make for some getting used to but its great. I think I've only had two kills so far. Its tuff but fun.

And man, the whole ambiance of running into a concrete building to hear the sound change and weopon firing going off is something else.

The graphics are quite stylized, and it's worth seeing it moving to get the full effect. Like Coot says, the sound design and atmosphere are great but it's a tough game to just pick up and play.

Let me elucidate a little bit. I think the quality of the sound effects is very good. As Coot says above, the crack of rifles inside structures is really exceptional. Artillery/mortars coming down on my head is a pretty cool experience too, so much so that I sometimes forget to take cover or run.

However, there are some weird design choices/bugs with the audio, in particular the positional effects. Why, for example, does my guy make footstep noises when I'm turning around in place while prone? I've spooked myself into thinking someone was near on more than one occasion this way. Plus, in my few experiences of close-quarters fighting in buildings, I find it really hard to tell where the bad guys are based on audio queues like footsteps, even with my nice G930s. I struggle to tell whether guys are above me or below me.

I've noticed as well that the volume of grenades drops off dramatically over distances greater than 20 feet or so.

Not really game-breakers, but small annoyances I hope are improved in future patches.

Thanks for elucidating fatty. (I learnded a new word today ).

Your elucidation sounds a lot better than your original “abysmal sound effects and sound positioning” statement which put me off because I literally said to myself “WOW, great atmospheric positional audio!” when I first started playing RO2. I’ll have to listen a little more closely next time I play which is a bit more difficult for me since I’m partially deaf in my left ear

Have you checked the Dolby switch on your G930’s to make sure it’s in the down position?

I know this game is all about gameplay, tactics, ballistics, etc.

But, sheesh, graphically (at least from that trailer) it reminded me of Call of Duty: United Offensive (circa 2004).

Is there really any reason why this game can't look as good as ArmAII?

That said, the gameplay looks very good.

Can anyone tell me what the MP gamemodes are like (how big are the maps, how long are the matches, what are the objectives)?

While there is a certain way that Unreal engine games do look (squat :)), I don't agree with the ArmAII comparison. A lot of RO2 combat is close-quarters and the building interiors (well, what's left of some of them) are far advanced of anything in ArmAII. BIS's renderer is great for big vista's but it's not great for buildings/internals in my opinion. Some of the maps in RO2 are impressive when the fire and smoke are all around.

The maps can be very big (tank battles) to very choked (fire fight CQB infantry), and Magnum's review covers the modes. The objectives and rounds lengths are really something set on the server - some very tactical groups like to play 45 minute rounds while others can be as short a 5 minutes and limited respawns. There's over 500 servers active so it does take some time to find a group that wants to play like you want to play.

arma2's character models aren't that detailed, texture and normal map-wise. and the proportions and animations are really off sometimes.

graphically, this is just superior to any recent ww2 game out there. no comparison.



those folds on his uniform aren't textures, there' normal maps and they look better while in motion as they change dynamically according to light source. there's also self shadowing, and other advanced features not even available in 2004(stupid comparison to call of duty:uo)