ArmA II focusing too much on realism?

[MissionMaximus 10]

Those three posts pretty much sum up the way I feel also. I do believe my box says Ultimate Military Simulator last time I checked.

EXACTLY, if you don't like the realism play COD, MOH or any of the other

1000's of games out their now just like it. Games were it takes a whole clip to kill you or where if you get hit like 10-15 times you can run and hide to replenish your health.

No thanks, keep the Ultimate Military Simulator ArmA the way it is. My advice to those that agree with this post is if you don't like realism put back ArmA and buy COD instead. ArmA is the only game in my opinion that is fresh and original instead of the 1000's of modern warfare knockoffs out their right now that have gone stail to me. Name another game with the shear scale and substance that ArmA has?

Maybe ArmA is too difficult/complicated for some of you that wish it was Semi-Realistic. Hell, it took me a while to get that Arcade FPS tactics out of my blood and I wish to never go back to those hacked console ports again. They have to many games out their as it is that cater to fun/arcade players as yourselves so don't try to change my favorite game because their is none like it.

ArmA 3 "The Ultimate Military Semi-Realistic Simulator" just doesn't sound to appealing to me.

[DeclaredEvol 10]

ArmA 2 needs gore, I don't like playing games with out Gore, good quality real hifi sounds, realistic effects, good physics and rag dolls and last of all, good ai and scripting. I think as for squads, functionality of the AI in big groups like platoons or 12-20 men squads, the AI begins wondering around trying to figure out how to stay in formation. While in reality, it isn't that hard... and groups usually don't stay 100% in formation, in fact most of that stuff is in Hollywood movies. Groups tend to use cover every where they advance or fall back to, this game has issues with that. Also there are formation spreads and distances that the game doesn't specifically have, including styles of tactics. Like spray and pray, or other little quirks that should be initiated. Anyways, I think that this game could do with some realistic impacts and injuries. Crawling around, rolling, missing limbs, bleed outs, the works... and preferably dynamic blood fx. The sounds are just as important as anything else, and the Vanilla sounds are fine... but they just need a tiny bit more pop or echo. I hope the Directors of BI Studios will accept that half or more of the community would prefer them to advance with quality gaming. Though, it may take tons and tons of hardware... from what I hear from the Epic Games studio in Raleigh, North Carolina. CPU's in a year or two will have nearly 20 more cores or even further than that, and around 200 threadings. And the Unreal Engine 4.0 is going to be integrating those compatibilities ahead of time, maybe BI should license ownership of the Unreal Engine 4.0 with Epic Games. Split it straight down the middle, you will make tons of money and you will also have an extremely well qualified API and SDK to work with!

~Regards from Declared Evol

[Cyteless 10]

I'd rather BIS stick to their own engine. Gore is something that would be a nice feature, but it'd definitely need to be in moderation, like in Red Orchestra.

I personally think BIS just need to keep working at streamlining the whole product, which I've definitely seen over the past couple of years. While admittedly CQB is a bit clunky, I very much doubt it's as bad as many people make it out to be.

BIS would interest me in their scenarios a lot more if they were believable and feasible. I'd much rather have smaller, section/squad level operations, going out on patrols, having the odd contact, and returning back to base.

Regarding the campaigns, I think a better route for them to take would be to make several separate campaigns for each role, ie. split into Rifleman, Armour Crewman, Pilot, etc. maybe covering 6 missions each, so that the player can get used to each one, instead of getting slightly familiar with one role, then having to jump onto another one.

[metalcraze 290]

Groups tend to use cover every where they advance or fall back to, this game has issues with that.

Which game doesn't? At least in this game they can advance and fall back.

CPU's in a year or two will have nearly 20 more cores or even further than that, and around 200 threadings

In sci fi books maybe.

And the Unreal Engine 4.0 is going to be integrating those compatibilities ahead of time, maybe BI should license ownership of the Unreal Engine 4.0 with Epic Games

And do what? Gears of War #2051?

Current iterations of UE are being made with consoles in mind, meaning large scale things are the least important priority there. Not mentioning that AI in UE is vastly inferior to what we have in RV. That's among other things. Engine is not just shaders.

RV not having physics and ragdolls is not an engine limitation that can't be solved. No PC will be able to handle them on such a scale and especially in MP.

Why when people don't see huge amounts of cartoon-ish shaders in a game they always say to change the engine?

Edited February 19, 2011 by metalcraze

[LJF 0]

Realism ftw, though I don't think ArmA2 belongs in the same category as DCS - I mean sure in some ways it's realistic but it's no simulator, even with ACE2.

Personally I'd like them to go overboard with the realism yet make it accessible (dang that's come to be a dirty word - I mean it literally though, not the way most other game studios use it :D)

[Beagle 684]

Realism ftw, though I don't think ArmA2 belongs in the same category as DCS - I mean sure in some ways it's realistic but it's no simulator, even with ACE2.

Personally I'd like them to go overboard with the realism yet make it accessible (dang that's come to be a dirty word - I mean it literally though, not the way most other game studios use it :D)

DCS is also no ral simulatior. It features the same hitpoitn system and you can kill MBTs with 30mm cannon there. It just feels more eral because it focuses on ONE flight model to feature more fidelity bit still beeing modeled in data tables. There is no "real" physics in there...and why should there be, it works very well without. Physics is often just used for letting stuff fly around and ragdoll. If you don't really need that you don't need full physics modelled.

But I would compare ArmA II more to LockOn FC 2.0.

It is more of a survey sim, not a study sim.

[BadgerDK 10]

You haven't flown the Flaming Cliffs SU-25 then.

Obviously there needs to be balance between realism and playability but the majority of Arma (and LockOn, DCS) fans prefer realism to accessibility, that's why they are still here.

We must realise that BI is losing out on big bucks and have some altruism going for them, doing things on the realism side of things.

I for one would not piss on Bohemia and the respect they show us by them asking them to dumb things down.

On the contrary, I would ask them to show off more of their ability in making realistic games and to continue having faith in our ability, intelligence and loyalty.

[Macadam Cow 1]

Maybe the next ArmA (if there's one) should follow the same path as DCS, first released a Beta version, available for those of have pre purchased the game. It would be a good way to get rid of most of bugs the initial release is suffering. I think the fanbase is big enough to have serious feedbacks to improve the game for the public release. The game would probably have much better reviews and people who have never played ArmA would have a very different "first contact" with it.

Just a thought and sorry it was offtopic =/

Edited February 20, 2011 by Macadam Cow

[Cyteless 10]

I like your idea Cow, it would definitely help with bug removal. We've certainly seen the success with the beta patch feedback, so it could be transferred to the idea of beta testing.

[Macadam Cow 1]

Well in a way we're already beta testing the game when it's released :P

The problem is a lot of people turn their back on ArmA because they've played an early build "full of bugs". They have no idea how much everthing is improved now, they still think ArmA is "as bad" as it was back then :(

[dale0404 5]

Cow, actually mate I have had fairly bad experiences with closed/open beta stuff for certain games. I aint sure if its a good or bad thing regarding BI....