ArmA vs. BF:2

Well are these two titles comparable? I have BF:2 and i am looking for another game like it it doesnt have to be exactly like it but i like how i can snipe and things like that on multiplayer maps. I like the army feel as well. So are these two games comaparable?ArmA vs. BF:2
ArmA is more of a hardcore sim.  Right now the game is a buggy mess, but they are releasing steady updates so at some point it should be alright.  Check out these guys who are pretty hardcore into it if you want to see what it%26#39;s like.ArmA vs. BF:2
totally different.
Two very, very different games to compare.
ArmA requires a much more tactical approach to things. For example, in BF2 you can simply shoot the enemy once he is in your crosshairs, but in ArmA you have to steady yourself and you may even have to adjust the sights depending on the weapon you are using. The attention to detail is greater in ArmA and it makes it less ''arcadey'' than BF2.  And yes, this makes sniping a bit of a daunting task because of recoil and such, not to mention having to get your aim back on target if the first shot didn%26#39;t do the job. Add that with ArmA%26#39;s huge map and you have yourself a tough job :P
Arma is a more realistic FPS.....   BF2 is considered an arcadish FPS.  
i wouldnt call ArmA realistic, inless getting shot 400miles away by one bullet is realistic? and yes i do have the game. but i think BF2 is way better.
is Arma good? Do the patches make the game a lot better? also does the demo give a good representation of the game?
[QUOTE=''gamerchris810'']i wouldnt call ArmA realistic, inless getting shot 400miles away by one bullet is realistic? and yes i do have the game. but i think BF2 is way better.[/QUOTE] 400 miles away?, the islands are not that big.it possible to be killed by a bullet from 400 metres away. but not 400 milesstop exagerrating stuff for god sake
[QUOTE=''gamerchris810'']i wouldnt call ArmA realistic, inless getting shot 400miles away by one bullet is realistic? and yes i do have the game. but i think BF2 is way better.[/QUOTE]Hmm, while I agree that the AI sometimes can be too accurate (glad that can be changed), I would like to know what exactly isn%26#39;t realistic in being killed by one bullet from a guy that%26#39;s, lets say, 500m away? That%26#39;s a laughable distance for a sniper to kill you, and there%26#39;s no magic involved even if a ordinary rifleman kills you from that distance. How high do you think would your life expectance be if you show yourself in the open, 500m away from enemy trops in real life? Not long, I can assure you that. But asking that is probably wasted time as it is to compare it to BF2, they%26#39;re totally different games. If you%26#39;re into realistic combat (keep in mind, it%26#39;s still a game), I can%26#39;t think of a single way that BF2 is better in. Vice versa, if you like quick arcadish close range action, BF2 clearly wins your heart out of this two games (ArmA probably puts a bullet in it, as you noticed).;)  
[QUOTE=''gamerchris810'']i wouldnt call ArmA realistic, inless getting shot 400miles away by one bullet is realistic? and yes i do have the game. but i think BF2 is way better.[/QUOTE]

yea.. like everybody else said, replace miles with meters and yeah - that is realistic.



they also don't tend to hit with one shot - there's usually a couple misses before they get you at long range, in my experience... long enough to go 'oh damn' and run back to cover.



at close range you're pretty much jacked, though.

man makeup