Quote:
Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES
BF3 and ARMA main focus is on FPS..
ARMA IMHO is the most realistic FPS todate..
But with that said BF3 and ARMA both suck at flight sims, wrt realism..
It is just in there to give those who get borred playig FPS all the time something else to do.. And something for otehrs to shoot at! 
The idea here is 1C is doing the same..
Only difference is 1C's main focus is on FLIGHT..
At least I hope that is the case! No one here knows for sure and anyone other than BS who claims to know is just blowing smoke |
I would say yes and no to that. No dispute Arma is a highly detailed fps first and foremost. As to the player controlable aircraft maybe they can be used as a distraction for offline players from the core part of the game but if used in MP they can add a huge amount to the 'full battlefield' simulation.
When we were doing Arma2 missions in our squad one of the best was working a patrol down through enemy territory and lasing targets for one of us up in a Harrier. It was all on to keep him (and yourself) alive to complete the objective. The fact that the Harrier was 'light' in terms of realism didn't detract from the overall mission. As I see it 1C have the same in mind but the other way round.
That kind of gameplay is completely immersive and if 1C could combine their level of detail in air sims with ground support even if it wasn't as realistic as their aircraft they would have a real winner on their hands .