I bought me some arma 2. Liked it but there's no pvp servers. at least on the west coast.

however it's not boring at all when you and a couple squads are being air lifted to your objective and your chopper is hit by AA fire. When you bail out and see about 15 deployed chutes dropping to the forest below it's quite a feeling. Not 2 seconds after you've bailed you hear a missile hit the chopper and see it plunging to the earth in a fiery inferno killing the pilot just as you and the rest of your squad land in the forest. It's a really nice "oh sh*t I'm f*cked" moment.

But it soon passes when you hear another chopper loaded with infantry and towing an lav-hq comin in low just over the trees to avoid what just happened seconds before.

I enjoy arma 2. So I'm definately picking up ofp2

@Alco and Assassyn: You guys may be right, but this article would have us believe that the two are in direct competition with one another. That's was the point of the whole thing. So why wouldn't people compare the two games in the comment section?

Even if it's true that Bohemia is better than Codemasters, and ArmA 2 is better than OpFlash 2 (which is yet to be seen--ArmA 2 didn't turn out so hot), OpFlash 2 is STILL probably going to be at least a better game than MW2. MW2 is basically for kids, or the Halo crowd; it's a run-and-gun arcadey linear shooter with little tactical thinking required. OpFlash 2 at the very least promises to be a much more tactical, hardcore, challenging, and REALISTIC videogame simulation of modern infantry warfare.

Not to mention MW2 DOES NOT have 4-player co-op, 70+ weapons+attachments, 50+ vehicles, a 250km open world, a full 35km draw distance, and a 24-hour day/night cycle. OpFlash 2 is superior to MW2 in so many different technical metrics.

I know what war shooter I will put my money towards this year, and it's NOT Modern Warfare 2. It's Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising. Btw, take a look at this awesome image of the 24-hour day/night cycle of OpFlash 2 in action:

http://community.codemaster...

MW2 is for kids? Why because they want to have fun? In my eyes they're both going to be fun. I have more faith in MF2 because I thought COD4 was one of the best shooters ever, but I also like the idea of a more realistic shooter hitting consoles.

In the end it's all about whether your having fun or not.

Ya I don't understand the mw2 hate either. You've got to be an idiot if you think mw2 is NOT going to be fun.

It's not "hate" for Modern Warfare 2. It might very well be more-or-less a fun game, for a little while. But it's also extremely similar to Call of Duty 4 and other Call of Duty titles, to the point where some people have nicknamed the game "Call of Duty 4.5." After the 1000th shooter that offers the same old kind of run-and-gun arcadey, linear gameplay that MW2 offers, don't you think people would get even a LITTLE tired of that same genre? But no, Modern Warfare 2 will probably go on to sell a gazillion copies this year, overshadowing many other worthwhile titles in the process.

So yes, to answer your question, the arcadey gameplay of MW2 can be fun and perfectly valid as well. However, if you've been a gamer for the past couple years, you might have already PLAYED a hundred other shooters that offered the same type of run-and-gun, linear action of MW2, so that style of gameplay is no longer fun to me anymore. It's gotten stale. Why don't people give something different a chance? Something a little more hardcore, more tactical, more challenging and realistic?

As opposed to dumping cash into Call of Duty sequels year after year after year after year... I mean, come on.

"so that style of gameplay is no longer fun to me anymore. It's gotten stale."

No it really hasn't gotten stale. YOU just happened to jump on the fps bandwagon when it got rollin, a few years back.

This simply means that you're not an fps gamer. go back and play some unreal and quake. You'll notice the gameplay and how it moves is extremely similar to cs and cod. This type of gameplay has been around since the dawn on online gaming. Just because you jumped on the bandwagon and got tired of it doesn't mean jack for the genre.

I'll play my ofp2 and mw2 why? because they can't be compared with each other. If you're seriously comparing ofp 2, to mw2 then you need to get with the program and take a look at how they play yet again.

Apple and Oranges my friend.

Are you joking? You're gonna accuse ME of "jumping on the FPS bandwagon?"

I'm probably one of the most experienced (some would say jaded) FPS gamers on this website. I've been playing FPS games since DOOM and Wolfenstein 3D, and Quake and Unreal, and especially Quake 2 like a fiend. So don't try to accuse me of not knowing the origins the FPS genre just because some of the core gameplay tenets have gotten stale and repetitive to me since DOOM 1 came out.

My point still stands, that games need to EVOLVE over time. Call of Duty games, as well as their clones, as well as other run-and-gun arcade shooters come in droves, by the dozens, year after year after year after year... The shooter genre has gotten extremely redundant and saturated with games featuring the same core gameplay principles that appeal to the same mindless crowd of gamers since Halo first came to consoles.

I realized back in 2004, after looking forward to DOOM 3 so much, and subsequently getting disappointed by the game's trite gameplay of "go to room A, shoot enemies; go to room B, shoot enemies" that I needed more from my shooters. I needed more depth, more tactical gameplay, more complexity, and more difficulty. Because this was around the same time that Far Cry 1 came out on PC, and I was blown away by some of the changes that Crytek brought to the FPS genre, namely in the form of stealthy jungle gameplay, wide-open sandbox levels, and unforgiving AI.

All this applies to single-player, because run-and-gun action in multiplayer games is still fun and an entirely different animal. I'm only speaking about the single-player campaigns in many of today's FPS titles that haven't evolved at all from Halo 1 in terms of basic gameplay. I might've even got Modern Warfare 2 for the competitive online component, if it weren't for the fact that there are better alternatives coming up (imo) such as MAG and even Battlefield BC2 that offer a greater breadth, scale, and depth of features, gameplay, customization, and player support. MW2 isn't on the top of my list in either single-player or multiplayer, because there are better alternatives in both these categories.

"But it's also extremely similar to Call of Duty 4 and other Call of Duty titles, to the point where some people have nicknamed the game Call of Duty 4.5."

So you've played it then?

Very wrong. I have the original OFP. Notice how I said Bohemia Interactive>Codemasters. Codemasters may have the name but Bohemia Interactive has the soul.

Oh hey, no free look for infantry. That's what makes OFP.