CM Operation Flashpoint 3 announced | "Oops, they're doing it again..."

[[frl]myke 14]

Tiny? There are litteraly thousands of features that differ from VBS to ArmA.

ArmA isnt a Mil-Sim, and DR isnt a generic FPS. They both fall (at opposite ends) of the Tac-Shooter spectrum.

There are litteraly thousands of features that differ from Ferrari to Fiat. So Ferrari is a Car and Fiat isn't?

[Mr.Wolf 10]

Does it require two people to drive and shoot from a tank in DR or does it only need one person.

It requires 3 people in ideal case, pretty much like in OFP/ArmA games.

[ben_s 11]

Well, you couldve fooled me. :rolleyes:

HALO, COD, BF they're generic FPS'

OFP series arn't, they're the more tactical side of it. But ArmA still isn't a MilSim.

You get the Tactical Shooters being around the area of DR/Project Reality/OFP/ArmA

In that order, Mil-Sims are VBS, and such. The almighty mil-sim is picking up an m16 and joining the military.

---------- Post added at 06:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:01 PM ----------

Name one feature that makes the difference please. Or the opposite maybe, tell what feature that arma needs to become a sim?

Simulation is quite a broad word and the differense between the two softwares are not that big.

ArmA II is classed as a Tactical Shooter. As its a game, its not a simulator. With all the mods it comes closer to a Simulator. But its still a game at heart, still a shooter.

[bascule42 10]

You get the Tactical Shooters being around the area of DR/Project Reality/OFP/ArmA

I think you're just trolling now.

[ProfTournesol 956]

HALO, COD, BF they're generic FPS'

OFP series arn't, they're the more tactical side of it. But ArmA still isn't a MilSim.

You get the Tactical Shooters being around the area of DR/Project Reality/OFP/ArmA

In that order, Mil-Sims are VBS, and such. The almighty mil-sim is picking up an m16 and joining the military.

Mmm...i can't say that this discussion is really productive, but all i know is that RV engine is the simulation of a persistent world, AI is simulated all over the island and not only when the player is near. If they crush a tree 100 km away, the tree is crushed even if the player doesn't see or know it.

So basically it's a simulation.

[PuFu 4591]

HALO, COD, BF they're generic FPS'

OFP series arn't, they're the more tactical side of it. But ArmA still isn't a MilSim.

You get the Tactical Shooters being around the area of DR/Project Reality/OFP/ArmA

In that order, Mil-Sims are VBS, and such. The almighty mil-sim is picking up an m16 and joining the military.

Great fucking GOD ben! Where the heck did you borrow this from? Sion? Please don't even put DR/RR in the same basket with A2, because it is NOT!

Rainbow Six (the original, not the Vegas crap) was a tactical shooter. So was the original Ghost Recon.

Now, COD, BF, etc, are run_and_gun first person shooters. So is Doom, Duke Nukem and a lot of others.

OFP/ArmA/ArmA2 are military simulators, and not just simulators (like FSX, Lock ON, etc etc), since those are trying to SIMULATE all the aspect of a Armed Conflict, focusing more on the infantry experience than everything else.

I am sorry but VBS and ArmA franchise have a lot of similarities, including a lot of the features, besides sharing the same RV engine.

If you would tell me some of the features in VBS that are not present in A2 (which is the game counterpart of it), please do, but i don't think you will find all that many.

Also, would you please explain to me what would make a game a military simulator for you?

[Pulverizer 1]

And yet the clearly did and altered their game in it's production phase to meet the criticisms of their community.

Sure they might've cherry-picked some small ideas here and there, but if they truely cared to alter the game to meet OFP community's criticism, it would've been a very, very different game.

[ben_s 11]

Great fucking GOD ben! Where the heck did you borrow this from? Sion? Please don't even put DR/RR in the same basket with A2, because it is NOT!

Rainbow Six (the original, not the Vegas crap) was a tactical shooter. So was the original Ghost Recon.

Now, COD, BF, etc, are run_and_gun first person shooters. So is Doom, Duke Nukem and a lot of others.

OFP/ArmA/ArmA2 are military simulators, and not just simulators (like FSX, Lock ON, etc etc), since those are trying to SIMULATE all the aspect of a Armed Conflict, focusing more on the infantry experience than everything else.

I am sorry but VBS and ArmA franchise have a lot of similarities, including a lot of the features, besides sharing the same RV engine.

If you would tell me some of the features in VBS that are not present in A2 (which is the game counterpart of it), please do, but i don't think you will find all that many.

Also, would you please explain to me what would make a game a military simulator for you?

Calm Calm

I never said it doesn't Simulate to some extent. I just said its not a full blown military simulator. It does fall within the "tactical shooter" reigon. But you must rememeber this reigon is quite a large spectrum. Ranging from ArmA series to DR to Rainbow, to even some BF mods (like PR)

But because it just has a more realistic look on the cover its not a military simulator, mostly because its totaly focused on the combat aspects, whereas "simulators" are about simulating. So go to great details in the setting up bases, patroling, paperwork (9 line medevac sheets for instance), battlefield clearence procedures, whole civlian procedures. Roadblocks, outposts. And theres probably alot more along the reigon of vehicle repairing and things.

Simulators aim for high realism on the spectrum of "non-combat", tactical shooters aim for high gameplay factor on the "combat" aspect.

if ArmA went all out on the whole non-combat aspects, it would place it in the lower reigons of Simulators...

But Thats just names and titles, it doesn't change game.

I hope you see what I mean more clearly now?

[andersson 285]

I never seen much paperwork or procedures in IL2 or lock on...

edit; or in VBS.

Unless its part of the mission, VBS or ARMA. Most other simulators cant really incoorporate stuff like that, but its possible in VBS/ARMA. But then again its up to the users, not the software itself.

Edited September 18, 2010 by andersson

[ben_s 11]

Actually, I think it woudl be better if they split it up into 3.

Tactical Shooters (Rainbow, PR, DR)

Combat Simulators (ArmA)

Military Simulators (VBS)

I would say, That makes it more clear. As ArmA isn't a "Military" simulator, its more a simulator of combat. But its still not really a Tactical Shooter.

Does that explain my point furthur? I'ts hard to get accross what I mean .... :(

---------- Post added at 06:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:36 PM ----------

I never seen much paperwork or procedures in IL2 or lock on...

Because they're not real Simulators, like VBS is. They're the "inbetween" of the Civ Flight Sims like X-Plane and the fun ones like HAWX for instance.....

This area is very grey and hard to explain what I mean ..... Sorry.

And rememeber the term "military simulation" doesn't refer to computer games. Thats why VBS lay in the low-spectrum as its the computer generated military simulator, whilst things like real-world "war games" (nickname) and training excersizes fall higher in that catagory.

Edited September 18, 2010 by Ben_S

[bascule42 10]

Ben...it's not for lack of seeing what you mean...it's more the case of thinking what you are saying is a load of crap. Wait 'till you get your new PC, then try both VBS lite and Arma 2.

I think you are making it up as you go along because you seem to enjoy playing devils advocate - not nessesarily a bad thing, and it can be an intersting intellectual excersise, but in this case you're ont a non starter. Over on CM forums maybe this will work, because quite frankly, DR/RR fans are looking for anything, no matter how tiny that will differenciate thier "tac-shooter" from all the other dross out there. The Arma, along with VBS, (Same game Ben...same game), series however has it's own nook. Firmly, and undisputebaly all on it's own in the "mil-sim".

With the line you are on, you are pissing in the wind mate.

[ben_s 11]

I (personaly) think its more a fact that "you don't want to know", and find it hard to admit that its NOT a mil-sim.

And just find it hard to come to terms with the fact its just not what you belive it to be.

No offense, but thats just how I see it. (p.s. I have been playing JCOVE and ArmA, more often that you seem to think)

[andersson 285]

Well, I agree fully with his answer. I hope you dont take it personally, I have nothing against you :) Your sim definition on the other hand is.. vague..

When you define Lock-on as not a real sim your way out. That shows you dont understand what "simulation" means. You seems to think a proper sim is a software that is a training tool. Some simulators are made to be used as training tools, but that doesnt mean a simulator can be a game aswell. IL2, Lock-on, SH4, virtual skipper, arma are all simulators even though they are not used as training tools (well, virtual skipper is on the border there maybe).

[max power 21]

I think there's a hang up here on the definition of a simulation.

In sim games, there have traditionally been two types: Study sims and survey sims. In the study sim, which I think comes to everyone's mind when the stark definition of 'simulator' is invoked, are the ones like BlackShark or Jane's F-18 that attempt to simulate one thing as well as possible. The survey sim simulates a bunch of different stuff and how they interact together as well as resources allow. I can only think of one game that straddles these types, and that is LOMAC, which simulates a few aircraft in great detail. Even Jane's Fighter Anthology has a press-t-for-target-button, squeezing the broad topic of operating radars into a single point.

Furthermore, entertainment software is exactly that, and concessions will be made to marketability and playability.

I think ArmA is a very wide survey simulation game. It does it's best to simulate a wide variety of aspects of a combined arms combat, but it's not a professional piece of sim software. Moreover, it's the best combined arms sim on the market with no one even coming close to it.

[dmarkwick 261]

I (personaly) think its more a fact that "you don't want to know", and find it hard to admit that its NOT a mil-sim.

And just find it hard to come to terms with the fact its just not what you belive it to be.

No offense, but thats just how I see it. (p.s. I have been playing JCOVE and ArmA, more often that you seem to think)

I think that I generally agree that ArmA2 is not quite a mil-sim. I mean, it's as close as a commercial game can get, and to be sure the community addons can make it very very close to one, but really, it is a game most of all. What it has, are features unique to this game which make it, well, unique :)

I would hesitate to call VBS2 a mil-sim also, but I think that VBS2's purpose has been somewhat blurred. It is used to train soldiers in procedure, NOT to train them how to fight. As such, it has a FPS element to enable soldiers to engage in combat, but how the soldiers react to stimulus is the focus of the exercise, not how many kills they get with their gameplay. Further, combat is only a part of it, knowing how to set up roadblocks and how to call in reinforcements to possible dangers is all part of it.

And - more succinctly - VBS2 is "steered" in real-time by dedicated overseers, akin to "dungeon masters" in other games, instructors who spawn in units and vehicles from their own PCs in response to what they're seeing in their students. These lessons can be recorded for playback later, to disect the events and learn things from them.

However, that's about the limit of it. The tanks don't really act like tanks, the helos don't act like helos, the enemy soldiers don't act like humans. They act close enough to be useful, that is to be present for students to react against, but to call it a simulation is either to elevate the product over what it's purpose is, or to decrease the meaning of simulate.

I mean, don't get me wrong. ArmA2 is my absolute favourite product ever, and all advances are gratefully received, but at the end of the day I wish to be entertained by it. Which I am.

[gulag 10]

Actually, I think it woudl be better if they split it up into 3.

Tactical Shooters (Rainbow, PR, DR)

Combat Simulators (ArmA)

Military Simulators (VBS)

I would say, That makes it more clear. As ArmA isn't a "Military" simulator, its more a simulator of combat. But its still not really a Tactical Shooter.

Does that explain my point furthur? I'ts hard to get accross what I mean .... :(

---------- Post added at 06:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:36 PM ----------

Because they're not real Simulators, like VBS is. They're the "inbetween" of the Civ Flight Sims like X-Plane and the fun ones like HAWX for instance.....

This area is very grey and hard to explain what I mean ..... Sorry.

And rememeber the term "military simulation" doesn't refer to computer games. Thats why VBS lay in the low-spectrum as its the computer generated military simulator, whilst things like real-world "war games" (nickname) and training excersizes fall higher in that catagory.

sorry Ben, but I think what you say there is nonsens, even you don't know what to say to be agreeable on both forums. Why push yourself to criticize what you love (DR and RR), just be honest with yourself and with other members of both forums.

[Mr.Wolf 10]

Small offtopic, cause I'm a bit tired of the elitism of this community and animosity and disregard for different genres and people enjoying them...

Guys, admit it, ArmA and OFP:CWC are just games...more realistic than Dragon Rising, but still games. you are not "warriors" when you play ArmA, you are just gamers playing with virtual toys.

The fact you like certain genre of game doesn't make you better, more mature or more inteligent than someone who likes different genre (even if it's CoD). Actually, I think many people sticking with very complex games like ArmA are kids and teenagers, cause lot of older people just don't have a time for these time consuming games.

I see it on myself. When I was in the high school, we all spent lot of hours in the first OFP. Now me and my friends just don't have a time and patience, many of us have families and while I still enjoy more complex games, I'm almost alone. Simply, the older we are, the more arcade and less time consuming games we play, opposite progress is very rare (at least when considering normal people, not nolife nerds living with mom).

[ben_s 11]

Well, I agree fully with his answer. I hope you dont take it personally, I have nothing against you :) Your sim definition on the other hand is.. vague..

When you define Lock-on as not a real sim your way out. That shows you dont understand what "simulation" means. You seems to think a proper sim is a software that is a training tool. Some simulators are made to be used as training tools, but that doesnt mean a simulator can be a game aswell. IL2, Lock-on, SH4, virtual skipper, arma are all simulators even though they are not used as training tools (well, virtual skipper is on the border there maybe).

Sorry, What I mean is "military simulator" is a very broad spectrum. It doesn't mean "computer software". past VBS you have all the 3d technology and training tools. And then you have real-world War Games.

I mean, ArmA is more a "combat simulator" since it doesn't "simulate" anything about non-combatant scenarios. its all about the combat, whereas things like VBS+ is about how you deal with the whole battlefield. The civilians, tactical options (as a whole).

I mean, about the military jobs and the logistics (as well as) the combat. Whereas ArmA II is still a simulator. its just not a military one, more of a "combat simulator" if you see what I mean?

But I guess its really all down to where the line is drawn with "military simulator"

---------- Post added at 09:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:56 PM ----------

sorry Ben, but I think what you say there is nonsens, even you don't know what to say to be agreeable on both forums. Why push yourself to criticize what you love (DR and RR), just be honest with yourself and with other members of both forums.

I'm don't understand what you mean by that?

How can it be a military simulator if its a simulation of combat, not of military tasks and other military parts. When its just mainly the combat, surley its a "combat simulator" rather than a "military simulator"

[[GLT] Legislator 62]

I mean, ArmA is more a "combat simulator" since it doesn't "simulate" anything about non-combatant scenarios. its all about the combat, whereas things like VBS+ is about how you deal with the whole battlefield. The civilians, tactical options (as a whole).

I mean, about the military jobs and the logistics (as well as) the combat. Whereas ArmA II is still a simulator. its just not a military one, more of a "combat simulator" if you see what I mean?

You know it's up to the mission creator how realistic a mission can be? Basicly it is no problem to create a huge logistic preparation + ingame mission briefing + troop coordination + combined forces assault + no respawn + battlefield support using an ingame mission timespawn of multiple hours.

You won't find that many complex missions because usually they require a lot of performance. Besides it'll be a total work of a few hundred hours for the creator. As a result I suppose that ArmA II can be as realistic as VBS can be. There's no real difference but in optics and technical issues. Regarding the dead dragon and the menstruation game ... well, they're simple shooters and I don't care for those games.

Personally I have a problem in general with the word "realistic". Authentic is more suitable I think. There's a tiny difference in the meaning; authentic implies less-realistic aspects but trying to do its best to keep the balance between reality and gameplay. Just my thoughts to it.

[Deadfast 43]

I mean, ArmA is more a "combat simulator" since it doesn't "simulate" anything about non-combatant scenarios.

You could create a mission where all you have to do is wake up in the barracks at 4AM, go for a leak and back your bunk.

[mr_centipede 31]

can we continue beating the dead dragon, or splashing the dried up river?

[ben_s 11]

You know it's up to the mission creator how realistic a mission can be? Basicly it is no problem to create a huge logistic preparation + ingame mission briefing + troop coordination + combined forces assault + no respawn + battlefield support using an ingame mission timespawn of multiple hours.

You won't find that many complex missions because usually they require a lot of performance. Besides it'll be a total work of a few hundred hours for the creator. As a result I suppose that ArmA II can be as realistic as VBS can be. There's no real difference but in optics and technical issues. Regarding the dead dragon and the menstruation game ... well, they're simple shooters and I don't care for those games.

Personally I have a problem in general with the word "realistic". Authentic is more suitable I think. There's a tiny difference in the meaning; authentic implies less-realistic aspects but trying to do its best to keep the balance between reality and gameplay. Just my thoughts to it.

Hmm, Perhaps thats right.

But its still not very well suited to it. The game is a combat simulator. The missions can be pointed towards any way you want it to be. But it doesn't change the way the game is made.

obviously, there could be a mod released I don't know about that adds all of the usual everyday jobs for the servicemen. patrols, handing out food and aid. Seeing to problems. Setting up outposts or blockades, without complex mission making. Like built in modules that do it.

That would make the game a low end Military Simulator. Since it would then simulate the military. Not just combat.

See what I mean now? Anyways, This is a very vauge subject, and open to interpritation.

[oxymoron 10]

oh noes, Floperation Gashpoint 3 *Dusts off Xbox and re-subscribers to Xbox Live* Preps Credit Card for DLC rape*...oh wait...

[bascule42 10]

Ben, I think what Gulag was trying to put across is the fact you are trying to be a CM & BI forums "dude", and that maintaining this balance is wearing a little thin.

I (personaly) think its more a fact that "you don't want to know", and find it hard to admit that its NOT a mil-sim.

And just find it hard to come to terms with the fact its just not what you belive it to be.

No offense, but thats just how I see it. (p.s. I have been playing JCOVE and ArmA, more often that you seem to think)

Oh...none taken.

You are kidding right? "I dont want to know"? Know what? Your opinion? Your definitions? It's not what I believe it be? There's me thinking it was a widely accepted fact in the gaming community at large that for the last almost 10 years BI have been making a product that simulates, better that anything else on the market, the facet of the military that is infantry based combat.

But hey, I'm glad you have come along and put us all right on that score. All hail.

How can it be a military simulator if its a simulation of combat, not of military tasks and other military parts. When its just mainly the combat, surley its a "combat simulator" rather than a "military simulator"

Harry H Christ on 'kin crutch...if you keep splitting hairs the way you are doing you will always be right. I thought it was only my wife who trys to win an argument like this. By setting in stone in your own mind a subjective idea of the meaning of a term that you yourself have coined. In this case, the difference bewtween "combat" and "military" simulators, and then adding layers on to your predefined suppositions. (I mean, where the fuck has the concept of "combat" and "military" sims come from anyway)? So, let me get this straight, you are saying that all the menial tasks of military life are not included in VBS or Arma thus taking away the label "military" simulator? Where as Arma would be a "combat" simulator becaause it is focusing on the combat alone?

Assuming I have got my head around the meaning you are trying to put across. By your rationale, cleaning the shitters out and a 25 mile tab across the brecon beacons would make it a military simulator? I dont think that is included in VBS2 even. (Though Im sure it could be modded into both Arma and VBS).

Which of course would be fucking ridiculous.

Edited September 18, 2010 by Bascule42

[[GLT] Legislator 62]

obviously, there could be a mod released I don't know about that adds all of the usual everyday jobs for the servicemen. patrols, handing out food and aid. Seeing to problems. Setting up outposts or blockades, without complex mission making. Like built in modules that do it.

That would make the game a low end Military Simulator. Since it would then simulate the military. Not just combat.

See what I mean now? Anyways, This is a very vauge subject, and open to interpritation.

I get what you mean and can tell you why the ArmA series is not the kind of way showing the usual day of a soldier (including endless waiting in trenches). That's not what the majority of the players want - ironically while playing an authentic military simulator.

At the end of the day people meet to shoot something, not just to sit for 4 hours of guard duty or delivering food to civilians. Recently I created a supply mission (mp mode) having a CH-47 and its escort; the player has to pick up several support items on different locations and transport it to its destinations. To keep the action factor I applied several action factors of spawning insurgents, fully aware that the amount of the attacks and transport actions might not be realistic in the amount of time the mission will be done.

Oh and you don't need mods for everything ;) Just take a supply take, add some action menu entries, drive it to location X and spawn some things and you have a supply delivery. You can do whatever you want if you know how to do it. But ehm .... rhethorical question ... would this be possible in the menstruation game?