First impressions

[jblackrupert]

That's hard, but we may hope next patch will allow you to enjoy it moar.

A proper North American advertising campaign would help a little but the reputation and reviews this game has earned mean that it had better be good.

The patch thats coming better be the creme de la creme of patches, tested and restested by more then just a handfull of people on a few systems.

X1/AWAR needs to start paying a lot more attention to how Bohemia does things.

[^Th0mas^]

Do this game have ArmA 2`s 1.60 AI? Gamespot gave it like 2/10.. much because of crappy ai.

[[ASA]ODEN]

Do this game have ArmA 2`s 1.60 AI? Gamespot gave it like 2/10.. much because of crappy ai.

Considering BIS is about to release 1.61 and IFL patch 1.03 will be 1.62 I'd say what was IFL 1.60 is not really the current stable and well working BIS 1.60.
I start to think IFL got the current 1.xx back when they wrote the license agreement with BIS (years ago?) and has since developed in parallell but failed to apply whatever BIS has sent them to keep on track with BIS development.
As such we sit with this not too stable odd behaviour experience of today, still 1.02 if far better than 1.00.

[Li0n]

As devs wrote on a forums - both exe are written by BIS, because devs have no direct access to the source code. So "crappy IFL exe" is written by BIS too. BIS just do everything they can to throw people away from IFL - suddenly appears some bugs that was never been in arma2oa exe or those, that have been corrected before in a2, mods restricted - you can continue.

[Fkymplbo]

Seems doubtful, you remind me something strange in the game...

[h34dup]

I just read through most of the thread, and while I think we should all keep it mature and civil, I totally agree some of us who feel a little like they wasted their money should have a place to voice their concerns.

I had been curiously watching IFL since it started getting regular coverage on Armaholic. I saw it get what I percieved to be unfair reviews that knocked an engine and play-style the reviewer didn't fully understand. Arma2's true (non-DayZ) crowd is a niche one, as are many of the WWII eastern-front-focused gaming communities I've seen over the last decade, so I knew IFL wasn't going to be a god-send. However, after buying IFL and attempting to play through both SP and MP for a reasonable amount of time, I can say I understand the reviewers' (and players') frustration, these are not necessarily unfounded criticisms.

Not only is this an issue because the game is broken in many places, but because, as some have pointed out-- this has BI's and the RV engine's name on it and they are charging quite a sum for what you get (compared to official add-on products like BAF and PMC, which granted have less content, but again-- it works).

As an avid editor/former WWIIFPS modder, I was buying this game primarily to make my own content and start to explore all the ideas I've had for just this type of game and setting. However, the more I played through the SP campaigns, and the more I stared at a measly 2 populated MP servers each time I tried to hop in, the more I saw that was...well, downright sloppy. I'm talking about houses that feel like rat mazes that you can't even fit through or open doors, parts of models that completely blocked the player view, useless vantage points, mis-triggering scripts and objectives, etc, etc. I don't mean to nitpick, but these are things I would never want to release a game/mod/scenario with my name on until they were fixed.

Again, I really do appreciate some of the finer points of the game as others have mentioned-- the models, islands, and the open world of possibility. It's a let down. And a lot of hard work went into IFL, I'm not disputing this...but not enough work went into it, it's not a finished product. I think at this point I'm just echoing the rest of the crowd so I'll stop. If these critical, core issues are addressed, then I will gladly give IFL a try, but for now I will not be anything more than a casual player.