Caring about the Player

[instagoat 133]

Caring about the Player.

Hi, BI Forums

First a little disclaimer: this is a fairly large post, and I am voicing a few points of criticism. These are the opinions of either me, or a very limited group of people, so they may or may not reflect the opinions of the gamer at large. Still, I hope that this is a constructive contribution, and not a complete waste of either your, the readers, or my time. So, here goes:

I´ve had a chat with a couple of friends tonight, dissecting what they, as "normal" gamers (as opposed to milsimmers familiar with the Arma series) didn´t like about Arma, and what it would need to do to become a game they could enjoy. This is not about getting COD kiddies to play the game, this is about opening it up to another sophisticated, but not very well versed in military tactics, command, and depth audience: people who play games not just to pass time, but because they acknowledge them as an art form to be dissected and enjoyed in detail.

One thing that consistently cropped up was the following argument: "Arma is a game purpose designed to not have a player interact with it."

Summary of this argument is that the world in Arma is so open and densely populated with AI characters, and designed around these AI entities that trying to do your own thing as a player is more likely to break the mission, than achieving the mission goal. This is a point that worries me, mostly because I perceive this, as an avid fan of the series, as one of the major pluspoints of the game. The fact that you´re surrounded by dozens of AI, trying to achieve their own objectives alongside you, with you just being another cog in the machine, instead of the gun-toting super hero that saves the day, every day.

Another consistent problem is the perceived buggyness of Arma. Only one of my friends bothered with the campaign of Arrowhead, (the others were put off by the complexity of the game, and its insistence on not bothering to explaining the details to them: the tutorials are good, but they only go into the bare bones of what you need to know to succeed on the battlefield.) and he was put off by constant glitchings out. In "Good Morning T-Stan" the commander sometimes refused to move, or the AI squadmates got themselves killed off in scores. In "Coltan Blues" the guy with the code de-spawned, didn´t have the code on himself, or entering the code didn´t work. Intercepting the bombers failed, despite consistently shooting them down every time. He stopped playing at that point. I on the other hand found shooting down the bombers to be stupendously difficult, never shooting any of them down once, and succeeding despite of that.

He also played CWC and got kicked out of the army consistently, never knowing what he did wrong. My other friends have similar experiences with the series. What I´ve understood from them is the following...

Arma tries its utmost to make the player not matter. AI achieves your mission goals for you, sometimes even punishes you for taking action. The complex nature of the missions means player action cannot be easily anticipated by the mission designer: this leads to situations where the player doesn´t understand the outcome of a mission, despite himself thinking that he did everything right/different enough to get another outcome.

It is complex not just in its controls, but in the way you need to execute the missions. AI needs a lot of sheperding to be efficient, and the player is not taught at all how to effectively employ the AI teammmembers to greatest advantage. It took me TEN YEARS to learn how to use them, six of those years I played OFP/Arma DAILY, and I only learned trough trial and error because there were -no- tutorials on the advanced stuff in ANY of the games. Battlefield situations in Arma can become like those in real life: confusing, demanding and deadly: but contrary to real life combatants, the average gamer has zero experience in dealing with situations like that. There are no other games out there that teach the player how to approach Arma, and (understandeably) most of them have neither the time nor the patience to find out how to rule at this game by trial and error.

It also is hard for them to discern what they are supposed to do within a mission. Even if they do master the controls, find out how to locate their squad leader and read the briefings, situations become often confusing enough that players become headless. Even with map markers and objectives on, Arma often sets up situations that put the player completely out of their depth. Mission 1 of arrowhead is a good example of this: instead of easing the player in, it immediately expects them to jump out of the helo, and function as a warrior. You are supposed to watch out for your squadmates, keep track of your leader, navigate to contact, dispatch of the enemies as they cross your path and then follow a set of waypoints. People shoot at you, friendlies and enemies are all over the place... there is a lot to keep track of, and my friends mostly made it trough the mission with lots of retries and the afforementioned trial and error.

With the market you´re trying to tap into, BI (ie, a more casual gamer market), this won´t do. If the game is buggy, players will try it on the first day, get frustrated, and trade the game in the second day. If you don´t ease them in and -explain to them how to succeed- (best without being condescending), they will run out of patience, get frustrated and trade the game in. Then you need to provide a sensible difficulty curve, slowly introduce new gameplay elements, and give the players a consistent feel of achievement. This is where Arma shines! The odds are tremendous, and success is much sweeter in this game than is in most others. Build on this!

The market has changed since OFP was released in 2001. Gamers aren´t the nerdy types they were back then, who were willing to put on the time and the effort to learn a game, even if it tried to do its best to break them. We were used to games being serious challenges. But in the meantime, games like Half Life, Halo and Far Cry among others have changed the scene: today, games are more about fancy graphics and bombastic effects and cinematics, rather than a sheer gaming challenge. There are still games that, in terms of gameplay, are excellence: Portal comes to mind. Most of these games shine trough innovative gameplay, and not by being exceptionally hard. Indeed, games either seem to be of a pick-up-and-play type, requiring little training and pracice to succeed in (apart from high-speed PVP scenarios, but even there, matchmaking has lowered the difficulty curve), or a challenge to the mind, not the hands.

I don´t know how to adress the problem of the player not mattering in Arma games, since this has been one of the core things settings its gameplay apart. As for the easing in, though, progress has to be made, and can be made, I believe. An especially good example of how this can work is Valve´s system of "arenas". Look at HL2:Lost Coast, where they themselves explain how they show players new gameplay principles, and how to employ them in a safe setting, before putting them into combat. They also explain how they cue certain situations to the player, to prevent them from being unfairly ambushed. I´m not sure if this is possible in an open world setting like Arma (experience seems to indicate that it´s impossible, as stated by, for example, the devs of OFP:DR, who said that a big problem was players getting "shot and never knowing what they did wrong".)

I apologize for the massive wall of text, but I stand by my criticism. I believe A3 is a big chance for the game, the community and the company, but if done wrongly it can blow everything out of the water. The old guard could end up alienated by the futuristic setting, the intermediates disappointed by the lack of depth, and the newbs getting rid of the game because of it´s complexity and difficult accessibillity. I´m obviously painting a pretty dark picture here, but you see what I´m getting at. I also hope that I do not come across as crass, or condescending towards the effort and skill of the developers: if this is the case, I apologize sincerely, it was not my intention.

Hopefully this is taken as a constructive point, and that the discussion following will be polite and constructive too.

Cheerio

Insta

[-ICEF-Pathfinder 10]

Hopefully this is taken as a constructive point, and that the discussion following will be polite and constructive too.

This is the BI forums... Good luck with that. :rolleyes:

[Nicholas 5]

Arma is a game purpose designed to not have a player interact with it.

ArmA isn't designed to be player-centric, not many gamers are used to this, they are used to the game revolving around them, not being part of it.

Ivan Buchta: The case you mention illustrates how the mission design works in our games. Arma has never been player-centric, and the things may always proceed towards a certain set of conditions which indicate the mission end: we do not ask the player to fulfill an objective, we rather ask whether an objective is accomplished.

[dmarkwick 261]

Yep, the non-player centric paradigm is what brings me in. Breaking that to provide a more linear scripted gameplay would be a travesty, let's face it there's plenty of games where this isn't the case. I say let ArmA retain it's unique game paradigm. Better for BIS to grab a fat slice of a thin pie than to battle for a thin slice of a fat pie?

IMO, caring about the player is done in ArmA, just in a different way. Caring for the player that allows him almost complete freedom. It grinds against other game styles, but that's why we play it isn't it? :)

Edited July 16, 2011 by DMarkwick

[instagoat 133]

ArmA isn't designed to be player-centric, not many gamers are used to this, they are used to the game revolving around them, not being part of it.

Yep, the non-player centric paradigm is what brings me in. Breaking that to provide a more linear scripted gameplay would be a travesty, let's face it there's plenty of games where this isn't the case. I say let ArmA retain it's unique game paradigm. Better for BIS to grab a fat slice of a thin pie than to battle for a thin slice of a fat pie?

IMO, caring about the player is done in ArmA, just in a different way. Caring for the player that allows him almost complete freedom. It grinds against other game styles, but that's why we play it isn't it? :)

I agree with this. I too am in for the freedom the game allows: the problem still remains that this is something that´s largely uncommon in the regular gaming world. Even sandbox games like Saint´s Row or Far Cry (Does the latter count as a sandbox freeroamer?) are heavily player centric.

Thus, from a common gamers perspective, the argument is the following: Why should I play this game, where AI take the task out of my hand, completely beyond my control? Why should I play this game, when it ultimately comes down to being a glorified screensaver where I matter in only one out of five cases, where I am tossed into the cold water, and where I most of the time am not told what is going on, and how to make a difference?

I love this game. I worry about making people not coming from our part of the gamer pool love it too.

One Mission that did this really well is Abandoned Armies: there you matter, yet you have complete freedom. A3´s story at first glance bears a superficial similarity to Abandoned Armies scenario, which is good.

Still, new players still need to be eased in, and told how to be good at the game without having to spend months trying to figure it out for themselves.

People want to matter, and People want to do well in the game. This is, I guess, what my point comes down to.

[bangtail 0]

Yep, the non-player centric paradigm is what brings me in. Breaking that to provide a more linear scripted gameplay would be a travesty, let's face it there's plenty of games where this isn't the case. I say let ArmA retain it's unique game paradigm. Better for BIS to grab a fat slice of a thin pie than to battle for a thin slice of a fat pie?

IMO, caring about the player is done in ArmA, just in a different way. Caring for the player that allows him almost complete freedom. It grinds against other game styles, but that's why we play it isn't it? :)

/QFT

Im sure some people (like the OP) construct these posts with the best intentions but changing the game to suit that type of play would cause most of the people who do enjoy it to stop playing it.

I really don't find that ArmA is that daunting, it has a slight learning curve, unlimited freedom to do and create as you please and it forces you to think carefully about your actions. As DMarkwick rightly said, that's why we like it so much.

[ProfTournesol 956]

Pathfinder;1982878']This is the BI forums... Good luck with that. :rolleyes:

This forum is certainly not troll friendly.

Still' date=' new players still need to be eased in, and told how to be good at the game without having to spend months trying to figure it out for themselves.

People want to matter, and People want to do well in the game. This is, I guess, what my point comes down to.[/quote']

I understand your points, but it certainly doesn't take months to figure out how good is this game.

[Nicholas 5]

Honestly though, what Bohemia Interactive is doing, must be working as they have been going for 10 + years. With their upcoming titles, I believe they will cater to a much wider audience. If they "dumb down" ArmA, as some might say, it might end up like the mess that Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising and Red River were.

ArmA III - Military Simulator Fans

Take On Helicopters - Flight Simulator Fans

Command Carrier - This can be a wide range from RTS fans to FPS fans to anyone, really.

And this is from Maruk himself about Command Carrier:

but it’s also our attempt to create a more mainstream game for all major platforms.

I believe they need to keep the ArmA series the way it is. With their upcoming titles, they will appeal to a wide range of players.

Edited July 16, 2011 by Nicholas

[katipo66 94]

No to player centric, and I'd introduce new players to the editor first, that's where it's at, show them how to place opposing units and how to give them waypoints, they"ll be hooked for life after that.

[Nicholas 5]

Also, I'd like to add that with the acquisition of other studios, they actually have a fairly large library of games that seem to fill in every genre, from Family Friendly to Milsim and soon Flight Sim and RTS...

[xmongx 0]

Yep....Agreed.

Big no from me too.

My own insignificance is one of the the things i hold dear, in arma2 its the driving force behind my mission design. I cannot think of another game (developer) that allows me that freedom.

Fail post unfortunately.

[Flash Thunder 10]

The game will recieve more attention when overall hardware prices are lower and when BIS tries to do something like what codemasters did FTE gamemodes i mean, the average person doesnt want to learn scripting, mission editing (aka lazy people) they want instant gratification. If BIS created just a few gametypes like what CM did (sorry i have to use them as the example) then they could market these gametypes to that audience and say look we gave you the modes all you have to do is drop in and play, you can learn squad commanding at a different time.

Dynamic missions fun to play could be quick could be long thats where its at.

Feel free to state an arguement this is just what I came to after showing some of my console friends the game and letting them go at some of the scenarios.

[Nicholas 5]

Dynamic missions fun to play could be quick could be long thats where its at.

Dynamic, instant missions are included.....they have been since ArmA 1

Both in singleplayer and multiplayer.

Go to Singleplayer > Scenarios > My Missions > New Mission

Then you select your template (Type of mission) and choose where, when, type of enemies etc....

[mmaruda 20]

I think, the OP has a point. I have a dodgy relationship with Arma, sort of a love and hate thing. If there would be another game like this, I's drop BIS product. Problem is there isn't.

From a newcomer's poinr of view, you get completely put off by the bad interface and sluggish control of you character, not to mention being a tank commander. I've played a lot od ASG in mi free time (I know, it's not exactly being professional military, but it's as close as I could get) and I just know, that when looking and things, aiming, moving, communicating, you do thsese things fast and without hessitation in real life. In Arma, just turning you head seems weird, like it weights a ton, so sluggish. Issuing oreders is terrible, why can't we have something like a como-rose interface as in Battlefield 2?

All in all, I do feel that there needs to be more 'game' in this game, and I don't think, it would contradict the military simulation character of Arma if done right.

[2nd ranger 282]

A balance can be achieved in mission design by simply requiring the player's presence - with no specific action - before the mission moves forward. For example; the objective is to secure a series of small hamlets in an area like Zargabad. An attack does not commence until the player (as part of a squad or leading his own team) is in position. This is hardly unrealistic. It wouldn't then matter how many enemy the player himself kills, just as long as they are all dead. Perhaps in this situation the player would feel like part of a team rather than being regarded by the AI as 'that weird guy over there who never keeps perfect formation'.

Another method - on the engine side of things rather than the mission design - would be to highten the effectiveness and thus the significance of a particular class of unit, for example enabling machinegunners and snipers to have more of an impact on enemy morale. This way, the player would feel that their actual role in the squad or platoon is of some worth (and no, I'm not suggesting Arma should adopt a 'class' system or introduce 4-man fireteams populated by wise-cracking characters).

It's fine if the game doesn't revolve around the player, but he should not be useless. If a mission can truly be completed with no input from the player then one should wonder why they played it in the first place.

[kylania 568]

with you just being another cog in the machine, instead of the gun-toting super hero that saves the day, every day.

ArmA is not based on having the player being a "gun-toting super hero that saves the day, every day".

[2nd ranger 282]

He didn't say it was, he said he enjoyed that it wasn't.

[Nicholas 5]

If a mission can truly be completed with no input from the player then one should wonder why they played it in the first place.

Yeah, but the player can add input. It's just like why do people join the Army? (For pay/ help your country, but there are alternatives)

Why do people volunteer?

Edited July 16, 2011 by Nicholas

[instagoat 133]

People seem to be not getting my point, to reiterate.

Arma´s gameplay is based on freedom of execution on the mission objective. The problem is the following: Players want to make a difference, and they want to do well.

I am NOT talking about changing the gameplay principles that underly Arma. I´m talking about making them more accessible. Changing the gameplay is chickening out.

But people need to be told what the game expects of them, and what the measure of success is in the game. Instead of just giving them a random set of missions that run their course around them, without them understand what is going on.

For most people, Arma is a completely new experience: they don´t know what to expect, and all they can do in absence of a tutorial is equate their experience to those which they had with other games. Arma being so completely different leads to alienation. This will not be the case if people are prepared from the get go to experience a game that is wholly different from what they´ve known before, and that there is enjoyment to be had even if they´re NOT the super hero.

[Nicholas 5]

So lack of documentation is what your getting at? Now that I can agree on.

[2nd ranger 282]

Yeah, but the player can add input.

I do like the fact that the fate of the mission does not rest on me alone, yet I can still have some impact on the outcome by adding my 'input' (shooting guys right in the face). However...

It's just like why do people join the Army? (For pay/ help your country, but there are alternatives)

Why do people volunteer?

Because they want to experience the excitement of war, for one. But we're talking about a game, though the same reason applies - I want to be a part of the fight and win it, even if victory or defeat does not depend on me alone. I still want to make a difference. I guess my point is that I don't want the fight to go on without me. Like if I spend too long looking in an ammo crate and the battle moves along and ends because I couldn't decide between SCAR and M4.

Edited July 16, 2011 by 2nd Ranger

[Tonci87 163]

Solution to everything:

Even more and better tutorials that cover every aspect of the game. During the tutorials constantly tell the player that completing the mission isn't the primary objectiv. The primary objective i to keep yourself and your squadmates alive. If you tell this to the player, then he will feel rewarded if his squad survives. He will learn that he plays a very important role in this. That the survival of his men depends on him!

[PuFu 4600]

People seem to be not getting my point, to reiterate.

Arma´s gameplay is based on freedom of execution on the mission objective. The problem is the following: Players want to make a difference, and they want to do well.

I understand that for people playing your generic shooter comprehending Arma gameplay and the fact that the world doesn't spin around the player can be hard.

Some expect some sort of gratification (especially when most other games deliver instant one) when the player does well.

XP system is proved to work to a certain degree, but is very hard in a sandbox game such Arma to implement. But why would BIS even try to give the player an pat on the back since one of the core things about the gameplay is the LACK of player importance in the grand scheme of things?

I am NOT talking about changing the gameplay principles that underly Arma. I´m talking about making them more accessible.

How would you make them more accessible?

For most people, Arma is a completely new experience: they don´t know what to expect, and all they can do in absence of a tutorial is equate their experience to those which they had with other games. Arma being so completely different leads to alienation. This will not be the case if people are prepared from the get go to experience a game that is wholly different from what they´ve known before, and that there is enjoyment to be had even if they´re NOT the super hero.

Do you honestly think that a coprehensive tutorial inside the game and some huge game manual covering all the basics + more complicated stuff would make a whole of a difference? I really doubt it (although i'd welcome such endeavour). We are talking here about a different gamer generation, that desire instant gratification, instant gameplay without needing to go through say 20-30 tutorial missions?

have a look here, see what even older guys say about huge game manuals - and i really liked the witcher series, and never found them to be all that hard for an RPG.

[froggyluv 2136]

Hi InstaGoat, normally I agree with many of your posts -this one I do not however :)

Really I believe it's just a personality thing -some like, some don't get it, others hate it.

I remember my old SEGA posse of Madden football and Gretztky NHL during college in 1990, we were a tight beer drinking pack that always seemed to enjoy same, music, movies, chicks etc...

10 years later, we still played video games together, yet when OFP came out I talked a few into buying it and they all had the same response:

"WTF? where are you supposed to go what are you supposed to do?"

"Have you seen that new Medal of Honor game, looks sick!!!"

....while me on the otherhand was totally nuts about the freedom of OFP -I always hated that feeling in games that those guards/demons/ghosts are waiting for YOU before they animate -felt phoney and gamey. OFP was the type of game I'd always waited for.

As far as not knowing what to do, I'm pretty sure those early Arma2 missions on easy mode had the standard "Rescue the doctor" here and "Escape" there markers.

I just bought Crysis 2 -it definitely has that 'all robot AI are turned off till player shows up' feel -not appealing to me at least.

Edited July 16, 2011 by froggyluv
Awful paragraphing

[ghostnineone 10]

you know making the editor more user friendly would really be a good idea, at least add a library that lists commands or something, its really offputting when you want to make a simple mission and find out you have to write your briefing in html, make the sqs and sqm files, and script even simple objectives, or at least be able to assign things in the editor objectives (i.e. kill an officer, place officer in the map, and synch him to an objective module or something) and the clunky controls and interface really are offputting, and i dont find them to be very intuitive at all, especially since i dont have a number pad so, and i think that making the AI a little bit smarter would help the game be less frustrating (in the first mission of operation arrowhead my squad was all over the fucking place and not following at all), and sometimes they ignore enemies completely, i got shot the other day because my squadmate ran past a guy and crouched 5 feet behind him (who didnt shoot my squad mate but shot me), and a lot of times they will ignore tanks completely even if they have launchers (in the 2nd mission of OA the two bradleys just sat there while being shot at by a t72). i think newer players would be more inclined to play if they didnt have to worry about babysitting the AI and they were at least semi intelligent and able to take care of themselves without needing the players input all of the time. its also annoying knowing that if i want to play the game "properly" i need a joystick to fly helicopters, a steering wheel for vehicles, and a m&K or controller to play infantry, and mods to make the AI smarter.

edit: dumb AI isnt a new thing at all, but in most games they arent that important, but in arma they are important and it would be nice to feel like that i can actually rely on them, instead of wondering if theyre going to follow me this time, or if theyre going to take 10 minutes to get into a chopper, or if theyre going to tell me there is an enemy at 200 meters but not actually shoot at him.

Edited July 17, 2011 by ghostnineone