Arma 2 on consoles

I see a lot of talk from almost every PC gamer saying that Arma 2 can't be done on the Xbox 360 and PS3, claiming that the consoles would "shit themselves" trying to run it, yet never explain exactly why they would. I would like to hear from the developers whether or not Arma 2 can be done on the consoles, beyond typical reasons like the games complexity in its gameplay features.

beyond typical reasons like the games complexity in its gameplay features.

Erm, there you have it really! A lot of high end PCs run crying into a hole when faced with Arma 2 OA - consoles in their current guise are just not up to it.

You could have a cut down and compromised version, but then you start getting things like Red River which is not really Arma at all.

Erm, there you have it really! A lot of high end PCs run crying into a hole when faced with Arma 2 OA - consoles in their current guise are just not up to it.

You could have a cut down and compromised version, but then you start getting things like Red River which is not really Arma at all.

What I meant by the words "complex gameplay features", I meant just that, its gameplay. Beyond Arma 2's gameplay, can it done on a console? If it can't be done from a technical standpoint as far as graphics and CPU usage, then how does that explain Dragon Rising, whose Island map takes nine hours to walk from one end of the map to the other? As far as scale is concerned, it sounds pretty damn close to Arma 2, and there are games on the consoles with even bigger maps than the maps in Arma 2, with lots of carnage going on to boot. This is obviously what many PC gamers mean when they claim that consoles, particularly the Xbox 360 and PS3 would “shit themselves†trying to run Arma 2. Beyond gameplay, of what merit is this statement from a technical standpoint?

What I meant by the words "complex gameplay features", I meant just that, its gameplay. Beyond Arma 2's gameplay, can it done on a console?

the features makes the gameplay and the ability to play it as you want, create any type of mission you want etc..Without these you wouldn't be calling it arma.

If it can't be done from a technical standpoint as far as graphics and CPU usage, then how does that explain Dragon Rising, whose Island map takes nine hours to walk from one end of the map to the other?

Really? 9h? Who has been bullshitting you?

As far as scale is concerned, it sounds pretty damn close to Arma 2, and there are games on the consoles with even bigger maps than the maps in Arma 2, with lots of carnage going on to boot.

Can you please list such games? That also feature the same detail for both terrain and content then? That also feature virtually unlimited unscripted AI?

This is obviously what many PC gamers mean when they claim that consoles, particularly the Xbox 360 and PS3 would “shit themselves†trying to run Arma 2. Beyond gameplay, of what merit is this statement from a technical standpoint?

Well, let me put it this way. A PC today is almost 20 times more powerful than a console, be it Xbox or PS3. Now, there is NO rig out there that can play A2 with everything maxed out...see my point?

Not even wanna go over the joypad vs keyboard and mouse nad the amount of actions needed for such a game

Now, compare that with lets say any of the rigs in my spoiler. The price for the Xbox 300$...My rigs combined ~6000$

the features makes the gameplay and the ability to play it as you want, create any type of mission you want etc..Without these you wouldn't be calling it arma.

Really? 9h? Who has been bullshitting you?

Iv'e done it myself with a glitch on the first mission, but it got boring after a while because there was no battles going on as perceived by sound.

Reportedly crossing it on foot in-game would take 9 hours. Vehicles make getting around a little easier - you can traverse the island by Jeep in 2 hours or by chopper in 20 minutes.

Dragon Rising Skira Island

Can you please list such games? That also feature the same detail for both terrain and content then? That also feature virtually unlimited unscripted AI?

Just Cause 2 's map is reportedly 400 square miles, the same size of the map in the first Arma, so Arma 2's map is even smaller. It has unscripted A.I, but not necessarily the same amount of content, but graphical detail, well, that's subjective, it looked great in my opinion.

Well, let me put it this way. A PC today is almost 20 times more powerful than a console, be it Xbox or PS3. Now, there is NO rig out there that can play A2 with everything maxed out...see my point?

Not even wanna go over the joypad vs keyboard and mouse nad the amount of actions needed for such a game

Now, compare that with lets say any of the rigs in my spoiler. The price for the Xbox 250$...My rigs combined ~6000$

Well, there are plenty of people on YouTube claiming they are playing Arma 2 with everything maxed out, unless all those people are bullshitting me, I don't know what you are talking about.

Maxing out arma 2 means:

10000m VD (or even higher via config), 3DRes of 200%, and every option as high as possible. What they probably do is set everything to Very High but playing with about 2000m - 5000m VD and a 3Dres of 100% or less. That's not maxed out.

Besides the graphics the AI alone needs one core of the processor ...

I see a lot of talk from almost every PC gamer saying that Arma 2 can't be done on the Xbox 360 and PS3, claiming that the consoles would "shit themselves" trying to run it, yet never explain exactly why they would. I would like to hear from the developers whether or not Arma 2 can be done on the consoles, beyond typical reasons like the games complexity in its gameplay features.

It's simple. In order for games to run on consoles they need to have low resolution textures (meaning the size of the textures need to be small), low quality LOD's (Level Of Details), small Field Of View (in order to make things that are distant look closer so you can distinguish details), no or little anti-aliasing (as the grapics cards in the consoles are not very powerfull) and have massive post-processing applied in order to hide the fact that the game looks like it's 6 years old.

Consoles are just outdated because the tech inside them haven't changed over the last 5 to 6 years. ArmA 2 can run on a 2 to 3 year old PC barely with all settings set to low. So how can it possibly run on a 5 to 6 year old console?:j:

It's simple. In order for games to run on consoles they need to have low resolution textures (meaning the size of the textures need to be small), low quality LOD's (Level Of Details), small Field Of View (in order to make things that are distant look closer so you can distinguish details), no or little anti-aliasing (as the grapics cards in the consoles are not very powerfull) and have massive post-processing applied in order to hide the fact that the game looks like it's 6 years old.

Consoles are just outdated because the tech inside them haven't changed over the last 5 to 6 years. ArmA 2 can run on a 2 to 3 year old PC barely with all settings set to low. So how can it possibly run on a 5 to 6 year old console?:j:

Well, if they supposedly can barely run on a two to three year old PC (this is not what I'm seeing on YouTube though), after spending thousands of buck's on a good PC to able to play it, to me that is a waste of time and money. It seems like a really bad design choice by the developers to make a game that no one can hardly play even to this day, in my mind, this is a pure rip off. You might as well save up and by a super computer, because you will most likely need it for Arma 3 to play it as it’s meant to be played, if Arma 2 is any indication. This is why I’ve been stalling on upgrading my PC or getting a new one, there is no common sense in spending a fortune on a high end PC just to play one game only for that PC to become obsolete three years later, unless you're rich then I can understand.

If you bought a highend rig two years ago Arma 2 runs just fine. My rig is about 2 years old (june 2009) and it runs Arma 2 on normal to very high (depending on 3DRes and VD). But the average 2-3 year old PC surely struggles to run Arma 2 on high settings.

Consoles' RAM won't fit the main menu :D

If you bought a highend rig two years ago Arma 2 runs just fine. My rig is about 2 years old (june 2009) and it runs Arma 2 on normal to very high (depending on 3DRes and VD). But the average 2-3 year old PC surely struggles to run Arma 2 on high settings.

Well, here is how I see this, the lifespan of the original Xbox was five years, the Xbox 360 is about eight to nine. Give me a good PC that will last for at least five years where I can play every game on the highest settings as its meant to be and than I'll think about it, three years isn't going to cut it. If these computer companies really wanted to give you a CPU & GPU that would last for the next five to nine years they would do it, but they are making too much money in ripping you off. The only thing that would at least make me think about getting a new PC depends on how the next Rainbow Six turns out and how it will turn out on the Xbox 360.

*yawn* oh this debate again... :rolleyes:

PC graphics mostly look better than console. The PC will always be more adaptable than console.

Thus, it is true what they say. ARMA wouldn't work on a console, never mind run with acceptable performance.

PC graphics mostly look better than console. The PC will always be more adaptable than console.

Thus, it is true what they say. ARMA wouldn't work on a console, never mind run with acceptable performance.

And all that "adaptability" really doesn't mean much to me when that "adaptable PC's" longevity ain’t worth two cents. How much would it cost to get a custom PC that can play every game on its highest settings for the next five to nine years?

We have had this exact same discussion at least two times before. No need for more. You will hear more if BI ever announce that they're making a console version of any of their games.

Thread locked.