After Playing Arma on and off for a year.... An Opinion

[Touch Off 10]

First of all, it doesn't take that many brain cells to see that someone who comes into playing this game even if only from the point of OA can have a valid opinion about the simulation's/game's problems. It also doesn't make sense to say 'Sometimes I judge a book by its cover' and back it up by saying 'if I don't like the story.'....It just makes you sound even more stupid.

The sim is a great piece of work, though I think there are, as with many other titles out there, too many hardened fanboys.

I don't think anyone is slagging BIS off when they point out some of the obvious problems. For me, convoys should be a big part of the game/sim. Having the possiblity of an ambush scenario where the action is fluid - and less comical, where you're not just laughing at the driver in front reversing every 3 seconds to simply move 10 degrees to the left, should be ironed out to get rid of the 'what's the point' frustrated feeling I have when I see this happen. It reminds me of that scene in Austin Powers...

I think the game feels great to play and I always compare it to the feeling I got when playing Flashpoint all those years back. I played that game , at the age of 21, when it was released and was completely immersed in it. I adored the freedom, the feeling of running away after an attack on a camp only to have to escape through a nearby forest whilst a helicopter flew overhead, leaving you diving in the dirt untill it left, amazing scenarios and often, with the game in the state it was at the time, demanded a lot of imagination to get the most out of it. Back then, for me, it wasn't about mucking about in the editor for hours or learning code it was just about enjoying a computer game.

Sure enough you can make some amazing things (all you guys out there that do) and I do make missions, basic ones, yes, with a couple of friends of mine and we get a lot out of learning how to stage certain scenarios but, we also enjoy the campaigns as written by the creators of the sim. Trosko is a legend in this house and my good friend, who is a very keen flashy fan and Arma/OA, and I are always seeing the wonder of Arma over its problems but, we also compare it with nostalgia to that initial gaming experience and one can't help but feel that BIS have overlooked certain aspects with regards to the sim's ailments. In my opinion I'd have liked BIS to address issues like AI awareness, animation and the way in which grouped vehicles negotiate the roads. Most of all my next point.

The one thing I'd love to see fixed and would really make me want to start heavily spending time on creating and/or just enjoying the 'game' (which is what it is deep down for most of us I'm sure, unless you maybe need a bit of a reality check') is that the AI can walk through walls, fences, houses etc. This is the one thing that stops me in my tracks just to think to myself,

"FFS, that's shit--what's the point in building this base for that crap to happen?"

Or

"Wow, these AI are super clever, they don't need to worry about walls...but maybe they just climbed it and the animation doesn't show us...bastards'...

You get the picture.

Yes, the game is complex, yes, BIS support the game extremely well. Now, I'm obviously not aware of what money BIS make or how their military contract ties into the funds available to allow us all a consumer version of the software, or indeed how different the training software feels compared to the titles we civs are privy to but, it kinda goes without saying that BIS should support a product they release, otherwise, and due to the nature of the title, I'm sure their customer base would dissipate quite rapidly if they weren't dedciated to it. It shouldn't be the argument to ignore the opinions of people who highlight issues that many of us share, some get used to it or work around it, that's fine but many of us want Arma to be as good as it can be and will support BIS in every way while this continued development goes on.

I hope that by the time the next full title, ARMA3, comes out that many of the more glaring issues are addressed. Issues that can become tired if overly discussed and many will choose to see past them to carry on with enjoying the game as best they can, which is commendable and acts almost as a sign of commitment to the title, but eventually it will become a virtual elephant in the room and I for one will be paying a lot of attention to how these problems are resolved by this point. I will also be postponing buying any more addons after PMC, I already have BAF and will probably purchase PMC in the next week or two, after that I think I'd like to see some serious improvements to what seem like issues that are being ignored.

Sorry for such a long post.

Edited November 29, 2010 by Touch Off

[-DirTyDeeDs--Ziggy- 0]

I stopped reading after you called me a stupid fanboy, thanks for reinforcing my pre-judgment.

Edited November 29, 2010 by [DirTyDeeDs]-Ziggy-

[Zipper5 74]

As I said, Second, it takes time, patience and practice. Never said it didn't take a lot of time, patience and practice. :p But that's really only if you're looking to do complex SP missions or campaigns.

[st_dux 26]

Of all the issues mentioned by the OP, I'd say that the most irritating to me is probably the fact that it's nearly impossible to get the AI to actually move aggressively. You cannot take them out of "combat mode," which means that you cannot overcome their default, overly-cautious behavior. You can see them trying to do a form of "bounding overwatch" when they move, but they do it right in the open without any regard to cover and in little over 20 meter intervals. It's not realistic at all, and it turns them into sitting ducks.

I know AI programming is difficult, and considering the dynamic and open nature of the game, AI issues are inevitable. It would be really nice if BI allowed mission editors to override default AI behaviors, though. Even being able to just force the AI to run from point A to point B without trying to go prone in the middle of a field while providing "overwatch" for someone who is also prone in a field some five meters ahead would be a godsend.

I mean, just check out the very first mission of the OA campaign. As soon as your "assault team" gets off the helicopter on the airfield, they go prone in the middle of an open space that has no cover. This would never happen in reality, and indeed, they wind up getting shot up and killed much of the time. It would be great to see the AI actually sprinting for some form of cover before getting low like soldiers do in the real world.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Terrain is an issue. Too open. User made maps with jungle or high grass seems to fail with finding balance between AI and player. Often AI sees thru foilage when player doesn't see.

Haven't touched OA. I'm pretty sure these issues aren't getting any better and i end up wasting my money. Buying Arma2 at mid-price did already feel like needless loss of money.

Funny, Takistan doesn't give me those terrain issues... Less trees, at least on hills creating an impenetrable forest canopy, and pretty much grass free. It's still fairly open though, especially for infantry, but long distance fighting has never been better.

So what if you are wasting your money. Is one party better (that's about the cost)? :D

[ProfTournesol 956]

Haven't touched OA. I'm pretty sure these issues aren't getting any better and i end up wasting my money. Buying Arma2 at mid-price did already feel like needless loss of money.

Bravo! Such intelligent and daring post :j:

Reason A. I've bought 3 products from BIS.

Reason B. These are open forums.

Reason C. I've have opinion about this which i see very solid.

Sorry for not to being clever enough for you, but when i think that a game is a needless loss of money, i don't waste my time posting in this game dedicated forum.

[Second 0]

As I said, Second, it takes time, patience and practice. Never said it didn't take a lot of time, patience and practice. :p But that's really only if you're looking to do complex SP missions or campaigns.

And as i said one can't get AI defend properly even with a lot of time, patience and practice. Because it next to impossible.

Your talking to guy who tried for about 6 years to get over various AI-flaws which limits mission designing for somekind mil-sim porpuse in SP. Finally i gave up because i didn't progress beyond certain level which i reached in year or two.

EDIT: Ofcourse this piles down to personal tastes. I like to keep action in squad-platoon level conventional warfare where good AI is pretty necessary.

Edited November 29, 2010 by Second

[Heatseeker 0]

@Second.

I got tired of that "2, engage that men" stuff many years ago aswell, if the terrain is more or less open enableAttack works well (mygroup enableAttack false), the a.i. will stay in formation instead of using the old suicide bomber tactics ("2, engage that man!").

Makes for more realistic squad behaviour and helps alot if you use high command with a platoon sized force, your squads will have better unit cohesion instead of running all over the place like headless chicken.

As for OA.. it could/should have been better but im alot more happy with it that i was with Arma 2, infact im actually happy that i dont have to play A2 anymore, just wish Arrowhead had shipped with a decent campaign and missions...