Crassmaster: The Arma 2 demo wasn't bad, but the ridiculous things that happen...I mean come on, how can you not put in a line explaining to AI helo pilots that landing in a forest is generally a BAD idea???
And some of the directions the game went in are a bit silly. What's with the 'Now I'm a Company Commander playing basically the worst RTS ever as I roll my units around the map' bits of later missions? And what's with that map, anyway...is it sentient? It was pointing out enemies that I hadn't seen because they were 300 feet away and there were 2 buildings and a wall between us.
anjohl: The Arma games always need a year's worth of patches or so to make them even remotely stable and playable. That's not a sign of a good developer, and is likely part of why Ubisoft hired a different team to do the sequel.
ArmA 2 is now in version 1.04, it is mostly perfectly playable.ArmA 2 is ten times as complex than OFP2. SEE:
http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/showpost.php?p=1921533&postcount=329 ArmA 2 - world filled with cities, civilians, animals, almost hundred of drivable vehicles from bike to tanks, boats, planes..all have full interiors etc etc..OFP2 - empty drab world.
ArmA 2 simulated full body dynamics, you can move your head independently from your body, you see your legs, everything. OFP 2 - floating gun.
I could go on an on.No shit ArmA 2 had some bugs, when
1)Its dev has a fraction of a budget CM have
2)It is infinitely more complex than OFP2
last but not least, Ubisoft had nothing to do with the game, first was made by Bohemia and published by CM, second was made and published by CM. And it had nothing to do with "why they hired different team".