ArmA II: Operation Arrowhead

 PC
Metascore
73

Mixed or average reviews - based on 29 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 14 out of 29
  2. Mixed: 14 out of 29
  3. Negative: 1 out of 29
Buy Now
Buy on
  1. Gameblog.fr
    40
    If you weren't convinced by ArmA II, Operation Arrowhead won't help your appreciation of the series. The only difference with the original is the new content additions, with a reasonable price considering it's a standalone. As for the rest, it's more or less the same game, complete with its flaws, thus it deserves the same score.

Awards & Rankings

82
#82 Best PC Game of 2010
49
#49 Most Discussed PC Game of 2010
62
#62 Most Shared PC Game of 2010

User Reviews

All reviews »
User Score
8.1

Generally favorable reviews- based on 223 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 165 out of 223
  2. Mixed: 34 out of 223
  3. Negative: 24 out of 223
  1. NyQuil
    Jul 29, 2011
    10
    Listen to me now. This game is unbelievably awesome. Most of these reviews - if you take care to read them, are from when the game first cameListen to me now. This game is unbelievably awesome. Most of these reviews - if you take care to read them, are from when the game first came out. It has come a long way - and so has the hardware to support it. Buy the game - even better if you buy combined ops - or buy ArmA II and Operation Arrowhead and combine them. It's not that expensive. Join a clan - a good one - one without ridiculous requirements to maintain membership. Play with the crew. Get to know them. And run some of the most immersive, realistic, expansive, open-ended, tactical, fun, glorious missions you have ever seen. ArmA vets laugh about CoD. We mock CoD. Because CoD doesn't have anything on ArmA. Seriously. Buy it and play it. Learn it. It's tough - we know. But good things come to those who wait - and put in the effort - to learn a real game. And if you can't figure it out - after just a few hours of applied effort - a look or two through the controls menu - and maybe even asking a question or two on multiplayer - then go away - we don't want you here anyway. Go back to your CoD where enemies throw themselves into your bullets and you are virtually invincible. We will be busy fighting serious **** enemies - human or AI - and trying not to get shot even once - because this game does not f*ck around.… Full Review »
  2. Samsonite
    Aug 27, 2010
    10
    All in all it's still an improvement over default ArmA2. It's a great sand box but it's only really truly worth playing online if you're aAll in all it's still an improvement over default ArmA2. It's a great sand box but it's only really truly worth playing online if you're a part of a proper milsim team like the guys over at ORC (Operation Reality) or something similar although I think they're pretty unique in the field. It's truly a very immersion orientated game and you really need the right guys around you to get that experience, otherwise the game deteriorates real quick and gets boring and unrealistic online. I'd still give it a 7.4/10 and that's pretty high in my books.… Full Review »
  3. Mandala
    Feb 28, 2011
    9
    Arma II and its expansion do require a powerful PC, but that's because its high graphical fidelity. Xalex mentioned in their review: "OtherArma II and its expansion do require a powerful PC, but that's because its high graphical fidelity. Xalex mentioned in their review: "Other sandbox games do not have this issue at all, for example farcry2 and fallout3. Those game I can run on max settings with atleast 40 fps, ArmA i am glad if I get 15 fps"

    The above quote is ridiculous because it's akin to saying "I can run the original DOOM on max and get 400 FPS, but on Far Cry 2 I only get 40 FPS." Obviously, games with lower graphical quality are going to run better. It doesn't mean that a game is horribly unoptimized because it doesn't give you the same FPS that much visually simpler games give you. Xalex' request to "Optimize the game and make it playable on normal computers" suggests they don't understand what optimizing is. Making it playable on "normal" (aka middleware) computers would have nothing to do with optimizing it, it would instead require reducing the graphical quality. Or, they could play the game on low graphics settings and let those with powerful computers enjoy the great graphics that games like Far Cry 2 and Fallout 3 aren't in the realm of providing.    … Full Review »
See all user reviews »