Caring about the Player

[BobcatBob 10]

/QFT

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.

As *up until 3-4yrs ago I was a COD-type fanboy in the sense that my patience for games did not offer relativly easy challenges or had shitty graphics (whatever those were considered at any particular point in time anyway) was almost nonexistent. And about 6 months ago when I finally purchased arma 2 (this is after having played and learned to love Operation Flashpoint Elite several years back, the first openly difficult and fun game I have ever played that showed me why graphics dont matter the most I might add with a touch of pride :)) and for a while outside of some early campaign missions and a few small amature editor missions I still beleived I had seen it all (it all being a mildly engaging, sandboxy game with clunky close range shooting and difficult-yet-enjoyable long-range shooting) I had yet to try my first real intense offering of ARMA combat (I thought placing alot of guys w/heavy weapons and waypoints all around was the only way to get this feeling of fear and intensity but they were so short lived because I would die after about 20sec they frustrated me more than they entruiged me) it just so happened that when I tried the little village engagement at the end of the Basic training mission that I realized the gripping intensity of ARMA combat about not knowing where your enemy could possibly (more than just a "will they pop out of this corner or that one?" be gave me the feeling walking off a cliff and flying by the seat of my pants, every step I took I felt was only there because luck or some higher power had let it be so, I felt helplessly out of control of the situation and not at all confident in my abililties as a soldier, I almost squealed in joy/surprise/terror and debated hotly with myself wether or not I should engage (purely out of concern for my own safety, not because I wanted to gloatingly savor the moment before a kill) eventually I did and only managed to get two badguys out of the 3 or 4 that were in that patrol. Then as they turned to get a bead on me I quickly jumped up and ran out of the engagement area (the village) and decided to flank. Long story short I got a few more kills but ultimatly failed. It was the most satisfying defeat I ever had, (up until that point, the ONLY satisfying defeat I ever had). The pride I got from holding my own in what was a long fight for survival against a small group of deadly enemies felt real, but more importantly, the knowledge that the fight I had lost was by no means unwinnable made me hunger for more. So it took me a long time to get the full enjoyment of Arma 2 and I have a sick feeling that without the guidance of proper BIS tutorials and missions it will take much longer for the less determined/enthusastic members of our community that perhaps be drawn in by Arma 3,to get that full enjoyment, longer than they are willing to wait.

[JdB 151]

In an odd way, you can compare the ArmA series vs other "military" games in a different way, that of Special Forces selection vs regular infantry training. It's all about the mindset. Some people have it, most do not. If not being the center of attention bothers the player, he should be playing other games (ironic how missions being completed without player interaction is brought up as one of ArmA2' defects, since the last CoD has it as a "feature" ..., check Youtube for playthroughs without a shot being fired by the player). Over 90% of people who try joining the Special Forces will never make it for a myriad of reasons, one being not able to handle the lack of control. The people who don't get what ArmA is about, or who do get it, but don't like the principles behind it represent roughly the same percentage I'd wager.

ArmA doesn't give you a whole lot of pointers. It's like being blindfolded, driven dozens of miles from your location, being kicked out of the truck with a sketch map and a compass, and being told to get there ASAP, or else you're RTU (Returned To Unit, in this case to the last retry, or restarting the mission).

The opposite is messing up in regular infantry training, and getting another chance shortly afterwards, it's the average result that counts. In virtually any other "military" game, it's ok even if you mess up badly, since the game is there to hold your hand and smooth any "problems" that interrupt the flow of the game, quite often before it even becomes a problem by tipping the odds in your favor, and/or giving hints on how to progress. It's only the constant gratification that counts.

Tutorials will only soften that difference to a small degree. People who have the mindset to play ArmA will play it, those who do not have it will play something that suits their need for a manageable experience better than ArmA does. When I first played ArmA: ACWA (OFP) in 2001, I got slaughtered on my first five attempts at a basic assault, and all I could think was: Sweeeeeet! :D

After that I changed the way I played, and continued learning how to do, and how not to do things. Now, I hardly ever get members of my squad killed because of mistakes I made, mostly they die because of the element of surprise and often just bad luck. It takes a while, and so only those with the right mindset will stick with the game long enough to get to that point where they have experience like real soldiers do. Like the military knows all too well, you can only teach people so much in classrooms, eventually they'll have to go out and take calculated risks to get better at it. Since games have a "load" button, it makes it a bit easier than in real life ...

Improvise, adapt, overcome.

[ghostnineone 10]

sheesh people arma's not that difficult to play...besides the controls and general clunkiness and bugs if you play it on easy (which most new people would) its not that much harder than any other fps...demon's souls is harder on easy than arma is...

[metalcraze 290]

If it takes months for people to figure out how to play ArmA maybe they should stay away from it?

I don't want to be harsh but it's a simple truth. ArmA is a simple game. It's nothing like Black Shark or Falcon 4.0 which are quantum physics compared to it with their 700 pages manuals.

ArmA plays just like a shooter. You point your gun at an enemy - you fire. It's harsh however because it doesn't let you rambo.

If a person has a problem figuring out a simple game that is ArmA - he shouldn't be playing it at all. Let him stay in his CoD world, don't bring him here which inevitably brings dumbing down for people who think that CoD is a tactical shooter and realistic. We already had CoD-kiddie-friendly PMC fiasco, thank you. Imagine a whole game being like that.

Edited July 17, 2011 by metalcraze

[=war cloud= 10]

ArmA isn't designed to be player-centrict.

Yep, the non-player centric paradigm is what brings me in. Breaking that to provide a more linear scripted gameplay would be a travesty.

Roger that chaps yeah, and even Ivan Buchta said in an interview -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.

Marek Spanel mentioned in another interview At the heart of the new game there is a story-driven campaign where this time it is a bit more player-centric. We have created a scenario which is near-future, and which is more logical for the player to start as a lone-warrior on this island, fighting for survival of civilisation. We want to make this quite believable, and so we set it in not-so-distant future, which allows us some creative freedom compared to our previous games. As well as the spectrum of units and vehicles, we have some freedom to experiment. We have some people who design modern weapon systems trying to figure out what weapons systems will look like in the near future. We do the same thing in house, we take the next twenty years and try to extrapolate. We will make it as real as possible.

http://www.everyeye.it/pc/articoli/arma-3_intervista_14306?pagina=2

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/06/13/bohemia-on-carrier-command-arma-iii/

Edited July 17, 2011 by =war cloud=

[instagoat 133]

...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.

Fair points, however, again, I am NOT talking about reducing the freedom of approaching the goals as the player sees fit. I am talking about allowing the player to gradually learn things before having to apply them in a combat situation, and teaching them more than just the bare bones of menu and movement.

Learning the movement and how to open the command menu and give orders is easy. How to move so you don´t get shot, and use the command menu effectively to destroy your enemy is difficult. It doesn´t´seem to me like people have read what I´ve said, I am not in favour of "dumbing the game down".

Buchta himself said that they want to reach a wider audience with A3. Watch the E3 insider presentation, for example.

That wider audience is -not- like us. They expect a game to hold their hands until they get it, and not punish them for things they didn´t even know they did wrong. What is so hard to understand about this...? I am a little despairing here, because nobody seems to understand my points.

[PuFu 4600]

and i'll ask you again. How would YOU do the holding hands? TIPS, exhaustive tuts, what?

[dmarkwick 261]

Learning the movement and how to open the command menu and give orders is easy. How to move so you don´t get shot, and use the command menu effectively to destroy your enemy is difficult. It doesn´t´seem to me like people have read what I´ve said, I am not in favour of "dumbing the game down".

Heh, after 4 pages I'm beginning to see what you're trying to get at :D

I would suggest that the entire topic can be covered with appropriate mission design? Given that you don't wish the gameplay to change (or at least change "downward"), then I guess the answer is to change at least the gameplay of the first few missions, the ones responsible for hooking the new player.

Now, I have to say right here that I've never played a campaign in ArmA and so I don't really have a valid viewpoint on how well they do this already, but I'd guess it's not too difficult to get the first 4 or 5 missions in any campaign to be quite linear and "tutorially" without seeming so, basically forcing important game events on the correct actions of the player. I'm going to make the assertation that new player wil expect, and therefore should recieve, appropriate linear game experiences at first before exposing them to the more open and free world of the ArmAverse.

In fact, you know who already does this quite well? Bethesda in their Morrowind, Oblivion and Fallout games. OK, so they're RPGs and use their early gameplay to set up the character, but the concept is good, you use directed, linear gameplay to teach the player how to play. This will set off some forum members into a minor rant about not encouraging "inappropriate" players, but hey, there's room in ArmA for almost any kind of gameplay. That's what makes it a great game, not that it's realistic, but that it can be MADE to be realistic.

[bangtail 0]

Delete

[instagoat 133]

and i'll ask you again. How would YOU do the holding hands? TIPS, exhaustive tuts, what?

Staged tutorials. Basic, Intermediate, Advanced.

For example:

Basic should include the same tuts as there are already in OA. Movement, Menus, basic controls of vehicles and aircraft, squad command menus, high command basics.

Intermediate should include Navigation using the map, explaining the compass, explaining the differences between cover, concealment, and how to best move in enemy terrain.

Advanced should include using the squad command menus to execute an assault, commanding coloured groups, basics about combined arms warfare and improvisation to achieve an objective.

I just typed this up from scratch with little thought, but I hope you can see what I´m getting at.

There needs to be a scaled easing in of the player, which needs to give them a sense of achievement. Once they get into the campaign, they need to feel ensured that they can master whatever the game throws at them. Then you can also completely unleash everything the Arma series stands for, and players won´t be put off, because they´ll know what to expect.

[maturin 12]

I'm sorry, but pretty much everything you wrote can be summed up with the words 'depends on the mission.'

Arma is just a blank map with a list of units that can be dropped into it. It takes a whole lot of deliberate effort to make the player not matter. And I recall having to fight a war all on my own to complete Harvest Red, and race the clock in the final mission of OA.

[Daniel 0]

So I guess the question is: do you make this part of the opening campaign, or do you have a separate tutorial that covers all aspects but is optional. If it's integrated into the campaign, if ensures everyone plays through it, but it might have a negative effect on gameplay if you already know your stuff.

Personally i'd like to see a small tutorial campaign, perhaps at different stages of Scott Miller's training. So set in the past, with SA80s and DPM/MTP. :D You could even feature his first proper mission, playing as a regular infantryman against a real enemy where you have the advantage, but it serves the purpose of introducing the player to live enemy bullets. It sounds as though the proper campaign pitches the player against the whole hostile force from the word go, so this might be a good idea.

Edited July 17, 2011 by Daniel

[Archosaurusrev 12]

The campaign is not the best tool to teach players the game.

In Operation Arrowhead for instance, the 1st mission is a full on assault which usually ends in a huge clusterfuck.

The ArmA2 campaign puts you immediately in a hard mission with special parameters like spec ops infiltration, demo charges and nighttime.

OFP did the whole linear campaign at the beginning thing well.

[blu3sman 11]

Personally i'd like to see a small tutorial campaign, perhaps at different stages of Scott Miller's training. So set in the past, with SA80s and DPM/MTP. :D You could even feature his first proper mission, playing as a regular infantryman against a real enemy where you have the advantage, but it serves the purpose of introducing the player to live enemy bullets. It sounds as though the proper campaign pitches the player against the whole hostile force from the word go, so this might be a good idea.

This.

A few completely linear missions set in modern day, telling background story about the begining of the war. Veterans will treat it like a opening movie, new players will feel more comfortable and gradually learn new possibilities. Everybody wins.

[NoRailgunner 0]

I highly doubt that most shooter addicted players will play+understand A3 tutorial/training campaigns from A-Z - no matter how great they are. Too many of them are spoiled by those "accessible" shooter. They just want to jump'n'shoot'n'scoot around nothing more. Guess they are mostly interested in military stuff as long as its balanced + fits into their style/gameplay. Or am I painting it too black?

Funny enough there are a few guys who think that A3 should to have an hardcoded magic shield against friendly bullets - just for the sake of "accessibility" and more people on (pvp) servers. Just trying to force irresponsibility and killstat wanking even more...

"If you see the flash... Wait, its just a friendly bullet - no harm & wounds intended!" :rolleyes:

[Daniel 0]

I highly doubt that most shooter addicted players will play+understand A3 tutorial/training campaigns from A-Z - no matter how great they are.

Good, then they'll see that Arma 3 isn't the game for them. But what about the multitude of potential Arma fans out there who just need that first helping hand to pull them in? I'm not sure what i'd have thought if my first glimpse of the series was the opening Arrowhead mission... There'll always be a portion of the market that will never appreciate Arma 3. The danger is that BIS could alienate exactly the sort of players who would appreciate it given a helpful enough introduction.

[metalcraze 290]

The campaign is not the best tool to teach players the game.

In Operation Arrowhead for instance, the 1st mission is a full on assault which usually ends in a huge clusterfuck.

The ArmA2 campaign puts you immediately in a hard mission with special parameters like spec ops infiltration, demo charges and nighttime.

OFP did the whole linear campaign at the beginning thing well.

You find OA and AA2 campaign hard to understand?

Seriously?!

Especially OA which is the easiest campaign in all of BI games after PMC

Good, then they'll see that Arma 3 isn't the game for them. But what about the multitude of potential Arma fans out there who just need that first helping hand to pull them in? I'm not sure what i'd have thought if my first glimpse of the series was the opening Arrowhead mission... There'll always be a portion of the market that will never appreciate Arma 3. The danger is that BIS could alienate exactly the sort of players who would appreciate it given a helpful enough introduction.

The problem is that people here treat "potential ArmA fans" like imbeciles.

When AA2 Free came out I've played it with 4 people that never have played AA2 or even OFP. All I did is explained them controls. After that they had no problem playing it even without my guidance. They died a lot yeah. But now they are getting better.

When you bunch up and a grenade takes out a half of the squad and you fail a mission - it teaches you to not bunch up much better than a tutorial text.

ArmA got the most of its community without any tutorials or dumbing down or handholding. You have to play it to truly learn it. And if you don't want to play it - no tutorial will help you.

It's like with Paradox strategies. People who don't want to play global strategies - won't. People who want to play that kind of games - will. Simple as that.

Edited July 17, 2011 by metalcraze

[Comrade Chaos 10]

It's like with Paradox strategies. People who don't want to play global strategies - won't. People who want to play that kind of games - will. Simple as that.

But at least they have gotten a LOT better tutorials, ala Victoria 2.

[jblackrupert 14]

Issuing oreders is terrible, why can't we have something like a como-rose interface as in Battlefield 2?

Project Reality is adding this.

Thats the magic of Arma. Just because the vanilla game doesn't have it out of the box doesn't mean mission/Mode makers can't do it.

The interface does need to be fixed though, just getting a door/gate open or getting onto a ladder is sometimes a serious pain in the ass find the pixel hunt.

[-)rStrangelove 0]

I think 'player centric' is something that is in the mission design rather than in the whole game design. ArmA has the capability to be player centric, but its the mission which has to be designed in that way.

Bugs in ArmA have nothing to do with it. A bug which prevents a mission mostly controlled by the AI from being completed is sad, but would do the same in a player centric mission.

So IMHO what the OP asks for is a change of BIS mission designs, not for any changes or dumb-downs of ArmAs features.

[instagoat 133]

)rStrangelove;1983692']

So IMHO what the OP asks for is a change of BIS mission designs' date=' not for any changes or dumb-downs of ArmAs features.[/quote']

To answer this specifically, and having spent a little more thought on what exactly I want...

It would be nice if there were tutorials that teach the player that they are NOT the be all and end all in Arma. They need to be taught to think like a soldier: They are a cog in a machine much greater than themselves, and while they cannot win the war on their own, they need to learn that their comrades, be the AI or other humans, depend on them. Players need to understand that the joy of this game is the fact that there´s a lot more going on beyond them.

That, and that this game offers a much freer, non-corridor approach than other games.

This, and giving them a better understanding of how to be good at this game beyond the bare bones basics of movement, command and control. A player that needs to find out how to properly command his squad by trial and error is likely an unhappy, frustrated player.

Edited July 18, 2011 by InstaGoat

[dmarkwick 261]

This, and giving them a better understanding of how to be good at this game beyond the bare bones basics of movement, command and control. A player that needs to find out how to properly command his squad by trial and error is likely an unhappy, frustrated player.

This is why an improved ingame user interface is sorely needed. The contextual Action menu is unreliable and twitchy, and as you say the number menu system is almost entirely trial & error. It's good, when you play all the time you can rmember number sequences and that's fine, but don't play for a couple of weeks and you're back to hunt & peck.

The ingame user interface ought to be a fluid intuitive system that allows for rapid use, I often don't use the commands simply because I'm in a big hurry and I know that it will be several seconds of scrabbling about being immobile and inobservant, when the reality is I should have just shouted the command. Some ingame UI needs to be developed that allows for rapid navigation. Whether that's done by rose, menu drop-downs, command pad or whatever.

[Tonci87 163]

It would be nice if there were tutorials that teach the player that they are NOT the be all and end all in Arma. They need to be taught to think like a soldier: They are a cog in a machine much greater than themselves, and while they cannot win the war on their own, they need to learn that their comrades, be the AI or other humans, depend on them. Players need to understand that the joy of this game is the fact that there´s a lot more going on beyond them.

This!

[Daniel 0]

The problem is that people here treat "potential ArmA fans" like imbeciles.

When AA2 Free came out I've played it with 4 people that never have played AA2 or even OFP. All I did is explained them controls. After that they had no problem playing it even without my guidance. They died a lot yeah. But now they are getting better.

When you bunch up and a grenade takes out a half of the squad and you fail a mission - it teaches you to not bunch up much better than a tutorial text.

ArmA got the most of its community without any tutorials or dumbing down or handholding. You have to play it to truly learn it. And if you don't want to play it - no tutorial will help you.

It's like with Paradox strategies. People who don't want to play global strategies - won't. People who want to play that kind of games - will. Simple as that.

Good points, but again those weren't my main concerns, apart from when you mention teaching your friends the controls. Your friends were lucky in that they had you to help them out, and having "been there, done that" cut a chunk out of their learning curve. Learning to survive in the game is all part of the fun and i'm not suggesting BIS should hold the players hand too much in that regard. But it's not worth disregarding the potential players who don't already have a friend base already in Arma, who have to take the leap of faith on their own and who might take years to get into multiplayer and the community. They're the ones that would benefit most from detailed tutorials on everything from using the gear menus to squad command. And even if you are a seasoned player, it's nice to be able to go over a tutorial made by the developers, and be certain there's nothing you might have missed when you figured it all out on your own.

Edited July 18, 2011 by Daniel

[pathetic_berserker 4]

This is why an improved ingame user interface is sorely needed. The contextual Action menu is unreliable and twitchy, and as you say the number menu system is almost entirely trial & error. It's good, when you play all the time you can rmember number sequences and that's fine, but don't play for a couple of weeks and you're back to hunt & peck..

Maybe having played since OFP days has helped me greatly with the ol' number system , I love it, select a few F's punch your numbers and your away. Though I do understand the frustration of others, how do you introduce a more intuitive UI without dumbing it down?

Better that they create good tutorials and think seriously about how they ramp up the responsibilities within the campaigns. So that people learn the best most effective ways of playing. I have found over the years that you can get by remembering a few select commands ie, reform, go there, hold fire, target this or that, and dig deeper into the command structure when your suad isn't in the shit.

I've brought a few friends over to this 'dark side' of gaming over the years and found that most will simply play to the level they are comfortable with. IE some would rather not have squad mates or command and others go the full monty. Quite funny really, how do you teach someone to use a tool while telling them they dont have to touch it if they don't want to.