No, they are pritty poor, the engine is the worst ever so its basicaly doomed before you get playing LOL, im going to test it after the 1.7 patch but they cant have made it much better when it comes to stability.
Agreed. I didn't mind the original ARMA: nice concept, complex and tactical. It reminded me of the original Ghost Recon (before Ubi got their hands on it and killed the nice easy interface), but waaaay more complicated. ARMA2 doesn't seem to fix those issues. The graphics seem the same as they were five years ago (and certainly NOT atuned to 1920 resolution!), the clunky graphics/movements and wooden voices... It all strikes me as being a really good concept so woefully under-resourced, or a Ghost Recon engine with a whole bunch more complexity but the same graphics. Which is a shame. (Not that I want EA or Ubi to come along and "save" it by wrecking it like they did to Ghost Recon!!)
And that's to not even mention the bugs. After a successful targeting of enemy tanks with the laser pointer, the squad commander congratulated me, and then we all just stood there, doing nothing. No movement, no actions, no new mission. Great programming!
Just my two-cents that have nothing to do with the thread but follow on from weeman's comment.
Arma2 graphics are better than Arma1 graphics and the engine has improved to be more mod/editor friendly and easier to script. That is plain as day when comparing them. The whole engine isn't exactly new anyway with its roots all the way back to OFP:CWC.