Caring about the Player

[JdB 151]

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.

Do it like H&D2 did it. Have a tutorial at the start of the campaign, but with the option to skip to the first mission. It doesn't mean much though, most people will already know the basics of FPS gameplay, and there is no room in a tutorial to explain the finesses of ArmA gameplay, that would take at least two dozen in-depth tutorials, and no one wants to go through that before they get to play the game, no matter how inexperienced they are.

Edited July 18, 2011 by JdB

[dmarkwick 261]

Where I said that BIS should stop current or any developments? Where is the prove that making an extra + optional GUI improves the outcome? Or it just speculation... as always? :p:D

Well, my point was that other games have an evolving GUI, they don't create one single idea then stick with it for 10 years :D they replace it completely. And, as good as BIS's initial idea may have been, there's always room for development.

And I'm trying to fill two needs: the needs of the die-hard BIS gamer who likes the system already in place, and the need of the new player who might enjoy the same commands, but presented in a modern context that is not confusing or clunky.

Trying to convey this notion, along with the notion that it does NOT represent dumbing down, and does NOT represent replacing with consolification, is nasty business. For some reason the notions of optional, augmentation, and new design seem to just instantly ignite many people :)

[ghost101 10]

Where I said that BIS should stop current or any developments? Where is the prove that making an extra + optional GUI improves the outcome? Or it just speculation... as always? :p:D

It *IS* just speculation, fueled by misguided belief that you can simply "attract COD players" by simplifying the interface. You cannot simplfy an already good complicated human interface without taking control and depth of gameplay away from the player - that's fact (proven by many games that have tried it before). The opposite is usually only claimed by careless publishers of beautifully complex games who suddenly wish to make more money by making the game more appealing to the dumb masses.

I agree, if anything, the tut-vids in ArmA could be polished somewhat to help ease new players into the basic control mechnics as they are (and should largely remain). Another great idea would be to somehow incorporate a generalized version Dslyecxi's TTP guide (withouit all the ShackTac specific stuff) into ArmA's distribution - or at least some form of basic military tactics info. A large part of a new player's frustration may come from the tactical awareness required when playing ArmA that baffles noob players?? (especially if they were expecting a BF clone).

The problem with OP is that, although he recognizes the difference between ArmA and regular FPS himself, he still insits on comparing it to games such as Half Life, Halo and Far Cry. These are games which follow generic FPS shooter game mechanics and do not really need even basic instruction on how to play. He lists more-or-less every attribute which sets ArmA apart from these games as a "problem": the none-central role of the player, the empasise of team-work between AI and player and the certain degree of military tactical knowledge required to get the most from ArmA. All these he lists as "issues" when in fact they are positive attributes. Very strange.

[dmarkwick 261]

It *IS* just speculation, fueled by misguided belief that you can simply "attract COD players" by simplifying the interface. You cannot simplfy an already good complicated human interface without taking control and depth of gameplay away from the player - that's fact (proven by many games that have tried it before). The opposite is usually only claimed by careless publishers of beautifully complex games who suddenly wish to make more money by making the game more appealing to the dumb masses.

Again, no-one's suggesting removing depth and control from the player. We're trying to find ways to present it differently. I know a lot of people here fear change, let's hope BIS do not.

I agree, if anything, the tut-vids in ArmA could be polished somewhat to help ease new players into the basic control mechnics as they are (and should largely remain). Another great idea would be to somehow incorporate a generalized version Dslyecxi's TTP guide (withouit all the ShackTac specific stuff) into ArmA's distribution - or at least some form of basic military tactics info. A large part of a new player's frustration may come from the tactical awareness required when playing ArmA that baffles noob players?? (especially if they were expecting a BF clone).

I agree, there's a lot of good information out there. If BIS are reluctant to include user-made content, then perhaps a reference to it in the manual may encourage new users.

The problem with OP is that, although he recognizes the difference between ArmA and regular FPS himself, he still insits on comparing it to games such as Half Life, Halo and Far Cry. These are games which follow generic FPS shooter game mechanics and do not really need even basic instruction on how to play. He lists more-or-less every attribute which sets ArmA apart from these games as a "problem": the none-central role of the player, the empasise of team-work between AI and player and the certain degree of military tactical knowledge required to get the most from ArmA. All these he lists as "issues" when in fact they are positive attributes. Very strange.

It's more complex than you've summarised. The OP is saying nothing at all about removing, or changing, any of the unique ArmA gameplay elements. He's suggesting ways to ease the new player in. People here forget how confusing and different the OFP style of gameplay is for the first time player, and as I always say, it takes about a week to "get" what OFP/ArmA is all about. Getting the new player through that first week is all this thread is about.

[zukov 490]

the main misunderstanding of this game is that ,it is half FPS , half RTS and bit a RPG, and no one of these works well

on a clear way on how this game goes on, is in the hands of developers, in this case the interface will be more friendly automatically

[froggyluv 2136]

So I guess we're talking about advanced, more thorough tutorials that better explain the many mechanics of commanding etc...? If so, i see no problem with that as long as they are seperate from the campaign. I'm new to Raven Shield and they seem to have that down pretty well -controlling and ordering squad (s) and the like.

I'd be a little worried about a tut on how you get your squad to clear an enemy occupied building tho -seems a little dicey :p

[metalcraze 290]

Well, my point was that other games have an evolving GUI, they don't create one single idea then stick with it for 10 years :D they replace it completely. And, as good as BIS's initial idea may have been, there's always room for development.

Care to name me a single action game series that actually improved over the past 10 years?

For some reason the notions of optional, augmentation, and new design seem to just instantly ignite many people :)

Some people may consider the current interface to be OK and that BIS resources should be spent on more important things like improving AI and adding new gameplay features.

People here forget how confusing and different the OFP style of gameplay is for the first time player

There's nothing confusing about OFP style unless the player expects another CoD. In that case he will not like the game regardless of interface.

and as I always say, it takes about a week to "get" what OFP/ArmA is all about.

So?

Getting the new player through that first week is all this thread is about.

When I started playing OFP it took me 5 days to learn how not to get shot and 2 weeks to learn how to win against odds. And I just played through OFP campaign for that.

Do you remember how clunky OFP is? How it lacks basic stuff like leaning? How bad controls are where the same key is used for crouch/stand stances? Where the game can't distinguish between RMB click and RMB click+hold needing a separate key to look through ironsights?

And yet nothing was confusing at all, in fact now that BIS gave a sort of "rebirth" for OFP with CWA I made multiple people play it and none complained to me that he doesn't understand the game.

And OA has much much much much better tutorials which OFP didn't really have at all.

If you consider new players stupid and want to cater to stupid people - then that kind of people is what community will get. Stop treating new players as stupid people, they are not. If they want to play the game they will find their way.

Edited July 18, 2011 by metalcraze

[dmarkwick 261]

Care to name me a single action game series that actually improved over the past 10 years?

No thanks, I don't wish to embroil myself in some OT opinion-based nonsense :)

Some people may consider the current interface to be OK and that BIS resources should be spent on more important things like improving AI and adding new gameplay features.

The usual answer, if there seems to be no advantage to a particular poster - then BIS are wasting their time and should put their efforts into etc etc etc.

One of the consistent themes brought up about ArmA is it's interface. I suggest it could benefit from some development.

There's nothing confusing about OFP style unless the player expects another CoD. In that case he will not like the game regardless of interface.

I suggest you don't clearly remember your first days in OFP :) and of course I don't expect to keep the people expecting another CoD.

So?

When I started playing OFP it took me 5 days to learn how not to get shot and 2 weeks to learn how to win against odds. And I just played through OFP campaign for that.

Well I didn't. I did it a different way, I played in the editor again & again & again, and rather than get better at the game I became fascinated by the editor. Different strokes for different folks, which is the theme of this thread.

Do you remember how clunky OFP is? How it lacks basic stuff like leaning? How bad controls are where the same key is used for crouch/stand stances? Where the game can't distinguish between RMB click and RMB click+hold needing a separate key to look through ironsights?

And yet nothing was confusing at all, in fact now that BIS gave a sort of "rebirth" for OFP with CWA I made multiple people play it and none complained to me that he doesn't understand the game.

Again, my experience was different.

And OA has much much much much better tutorials which OFP didn't really have at all.

It seems about the same to me. And, judging by new user comments, it's still not as effective as it could be. It's difficult to judge this if, like us, we have a background of BIS games. All we can go on is the new user experience.

If you consider new players stupid and want to cater to stupid people - then that kind of people is what community will get. Stop treating new players as stupid people, they are not. If they want to play the game they will find their way.

I have to assume that this train of thought over this entire topic will not change for you - that you see it as a way to cater for stupid people. As such, we're not going to agree on much in this thread :) your comment suggests I'm advocating making things simpler. I'm not, I'm advocating making things more accessible by good UI design. It's difficult for some people to grasp that.

Edited July 18, 2011 by DMarkwick

[ghost101 10]

Interface is fine imo. Sure, it's not perfect and I'm sure there's a list of enhancements that could be and have been identified to perfect it. I would hope that Bohimeia are always looking for ways to tweak it. However, I definitely do not think it needs any kind of major overhaul. Fe, I do not see any better model than the context menu system for controlling the issuing of a vast array of commands to AI troops. It's a great system I hope they keep. Always room for improvements, but the essential idea is there and should remain.

Besides that, the OP was not focused on that issue. His point was that he got a bunch of his CoD friends together to play ArmA2. Their conclusion was that they didn't like it because it wasn't like Half-Life. So what are the devs going to do to make his CoD friends like it more? Well, what can they do? Make it more like CoD?

I think OP can GTFO, to be frank.

[dmarkwick 261]

Your persistence in maintaining your misunderstanding is impressive.

[ghost101 10]

I think I understand why OP's friends do not like ArmA perfectly fine, thanks. They wanted to try ArmA because it looked cool and "kinda like" the simple FPS they're familiar and comfortable with, but:

1. They're not used to complex interfaces, because they play simple games such as Half-Life.

2. They find the fact that in ArmA they are playing as part of a team baffling, because they're used to being the ego-centric centre of the game universe.

3. They have no idea of basic milsim tactics, because there are virtually zero group tactics in a game like Half-Life.

4. they're not interested in a game that takes more than 2 minutes to grasp.

5. ArmA is not really a game for them...return to CoD immediately.

It's not really difficult. I think you're making the issue more complex than it need be.

[kylania 568]

Besides that, the OP was not focused on that issue. His point was that he got a bunch of his CoD friends together to play ArmA2. Their conclusion was that they didn't like it because it wasn't like Half-Life. So what are the devs going to do to make his CoD friends like it more? Well, what can they do? Make it more like CoD?

I think OP can GTFO, to be frank.

He posted again in the middle of this thread about how his idea wasn't dumbing it down to BFoon levels but instead making more targeted tutorials to explain to the player that they are NOT Rambo and how to work with a team as a soldier instead of lone wolfing the entire time.

[zukov 490]

I think I understand why OP's friends do not like ArmA perfectly fine, thanks. They wanted to try ArmA because it looked cool and "kinda like" the simple FPS they're familiar and comfortable with, but:

1. They're not used to complex interfaces, because they play simple games such as Half-Life.

2. They find the fact that in ArmA they are playing as part of a team baffling, because they're used to being the ego-centric centre of the game universe.

3. They have no idea of basic milsim tactics, because there are virtually zero group tactics in a game like Half-Life.

4. they're not interested in a game that takes more than 2 minutes to grasp.

5. ArmA is not really a game for them...return to CoD immediately.

It's not really difficult. I think you're making the issue more complex than it need be.

there are many players (IMHO thousands) from Americas Army 2/3 and GRAW 2, like me, that want to play at ARMA like these games, with all stuff on ARMA (the choppers and fixed wing are the best)

honestly ARMA don't have a interface but a mess between RPG and RTS, and the player have less action and obviously less fun.

COD is not the only military game and a lot of clans are modifying it in more tactical way

now ARMA 2 has more weapons, tanks, air veichles than all military games combined, but don't have great success

like the thread's starter as wrote a more friendly interface helps the newbie to play this game

the sci fi scenario with digital HUD ,maybe will solve a lot of aspects

Edited July 18, 2011 by Zukov

[dmarkwick 261]

I think I understand why OP's friends do not like ArmA perfectly fine, thanks. They wanted to try ArmA because it looked cool and "kinda like" the simple FPS they're familiar and comfortable with, but:

1. They're not used to complex interfaces, because they play simple games such as Half-Life.

2. They find the fact that in ArmA they are playing as part of a team baffling, because they're used to being the ego-centric centre of the game universe.

3. They have no idea of basic milsim tactics, because there are virtually zero group tactics in a game like Half-Life.

4. they're not interested in a game that takes more than 2 minutes to grasp.

5. ArmA is not really a game for them...return to CoD immediately.

It's not really difficult. I think you're making the issue more complex than it need be.

I reckon it's you who is simplifying it so you can justify dismissing it :)

Let's face it: ArmA should be a hell of a lot more popular than it is already. So why is it not? Your approach is to dismiss everyone who doesn't "get" it as lower level CoD players. It's their fault. It's certainly not the game.

Now, I'm as self-satisfyingly egocentric as anyone else here, I rather like the "secret" that is ArmA. But let's view it from BIS's standpoint, thay would wish to sell more copies and have more people play for longer. What WE don't wish is a lowering of the current game paradigm, so we must be interested in raising the awareness in other ways. And, like it or not, the interface is one of those places we can do that.

If a great demo comes out with what appears to be a well designed, and comprehensive command system (as well as the trusty old numerical one) it must surely make people realise the huge potential of the game. Which, we might make the assumption, isn't happening so far.

---------- Post added at 08:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:49 PM ----------

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

Now look what you've gone and done, you dumbing-down simplification gameplay-reducing CoD-attracting console-loving etc etc etc ;)

[Tonci87 163]

Great discussion guys, keep it going. I just hope that the devs read this

[paragraphic l 2]

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.

Just to get this somewhere to what I feel is more ontopic than where that ghost fellow took it.

The idea of having a tutorial campaign sort of thing with a good story is something that could help things go in the right direction easier for new people. It doesn't have to be forced on anyone just when you start the real campaign let people know there is something that could learn you how to survive the game.

Maybe in the first few missions have the team mates and leaders give some feedback to each other and you to help improve some stuff and make them appear more experienced, hence it being more acceptable that they are more important to finish the objectives.

Nothing that has to alienate original fans or new guys who feel like they can behave like veterans :rolleyes:

One thing that I miss is the feedback you got from getting killed in OFP, the dead cam that showed who killed you. As someone stated that if you stand in a cluster and get killed by an hand grenade this should show you the result not just for you but all the others standing near you.

And I totally agree with DMarkwick, in 10years more improvements to GUI could have been made and experimented with. Hiring some external GUI-expert should give some fun results for us to test in the beta's ;)

TLDR; I think who ever disagrees with the OP didn't read nor understand his post and just went with the title and initial responses to form an uneducated opinion. This is something much debated and critised by reviewers all around and should be taken serious.

[walker 0]

Hi all

ArmA evolves, that is its strength.

The throw it all out and start again route is economic suicide and fails to recognise the fundamental fact that ArmA is built on a strong foundation of a bleeding game engine that computer hardware is only just catching up with; in fact half the reason ArmA game play is improving is that computers are now catching up with what ArmA can do.

The other half of the equation is that because ArmA was built as such an open platform adding functionality has been relatively easy and the engine has even been able to cope with masses of new systems, from destructible buildings to strategic interfaces and increasingly realistic flight sim capabilities. Hence unlike COD, Battlefield, Unreal and FarCry as well as all the other dead-end engines ArmA is evolving, no other game can claim that.

So the big budget developers of those corridor and shoebox games turn out sequel after sequel after sequel of ego-booster ten hour digiwood interactive films at 50 dollars a seat with no new game play features in 10 years of development.

As to the AI question. I would add scripted only AI config switch that turns off the AI so that they only follow scripted functions, which I think already exists so people like the OP just need to be aware of it; then let people like the OP have a go at writing missions using it.

IMHO I think that in order to achieve their aim they will end up with corridor and Shoebox islands; just the same as all the big budget professional developers do, because the scripted AI concept is inherently unable to cope with large open worlds, but the tools are there to allow them to achieve their aims, good luck to them anything they can improve will let ArmA continue to evolve.

Kind Regards walker

[ghost101 10]

And I totally agree with DMarkwick, in 10years more improvements to GUI could have been made and experimented with. Hiring some external GUI-expert should give some fun results for us to test in the beta's ;)

take a look at that. It's Maya 3D's context sensitive menu - developed over 20 years of intensive GUI research by Alias Wavefront. As far as I can see, it's essentially what Bohemia have implemented in ArmA and is one of the most effective user command issuing method for 3D applications which enable actions to be performed on multiple entities (units in ArmA's case, polygon vertices in Maya 3D's case)

Why? Because over the past 30 years of GUI research it has been proven to be the most effective/efficient method of human-computer interaction. There is no better way to tell a computer what you want it to do.

As far as I can see, Bohemia have implemented this paradigm pretty we'll and have sucessfully implemented it to enable control of units. It's not perfect but they are definitely on the right tracks. So you guys can hypothosize 'till you're blue in the face, with unsubstantiated claims that "there must be a better alternative". There is not. Not for the current hardware input devices widely used by gamers (ie: mouse and keyboard), not for a game that offers such complexity.

If you think it can be done differently and better, show us your GUI designs.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Imho new players who are really interested in A3 just need a good trainer + missions (= practice) to get familiar with the game.

For example:

"Mission 1A Orientation/navigation course" = introducing stuff

"Mission 1B Practise orientation basics" = daylight reach waypoints within time limit

"Mission 1C Practise orientation advanced" = nighttime reach waypoints within time limit only using stars and map + few random enemy

This way veterans could recap some things too and have some fun with simple missions. Just something that isn't so dry and theoretic. ;)

[instagoat 133]

Great discussion guys, keep it going. I just hope that the devs read this

That was my aim actually, to see if I could coax a response on this from the bosses.

Ghost 101: I have to admit I´m a little bit angry because you stamped off my friends in such a manner, but I´ll look past that for now. You didn´t read -anything- I said, and you tried to understand it even less. Instead of trying to get what I´m saying, you immediately jump to the conclusion that I am advocating to dumbing the core gameplay down for so called "Cod kiddies". Again, that is NOT what I´m saying. And oversimplifying what I´m saying to the point where it comes down to that isn´t helping the matter either.

Fact is that new people, even if this WOULD be the kind of game to them, are alienated by the fact that Arma tries it´s best to spoil their fun. It has controls up the wahoo, it doesn´t teach the player how to play to succeed, it doesn´t tell the player what the hell it wants from him.

Instead, it just tosses them into the cold water and watches them flail. There´s us who have been with the game long enough to know how to swim, there´s the scant few who learn it trough sheer persistence, and there´s those, likely the majority, who drop the game because they get frustrated.

Arma is unlike anything else out there. Trying to make the gameplay fit the player ends up with an abortion like Dragon Rising, and we don´t want that. The player needs to fit the gameplay, and they need to be taught how to do that.

As for Arma evolving, I´m not seeing that to the degree that is necessary to keep up with the market. Physics and Ragdolls are touted as -the- thing. HL2 brought detailed physics as a sensible gameplay element in 2004. Deus Ex 2 had ragdolls in 2003. All the game is doing is catching up to standards, in that regard. I doubt anybody will really be turned by that: what the game needs to do (again, only my opinion.) is shine with gameplay, graphics and cinematic appeal. Lord Buchta himself stated at E3 that they´re trying to bring more, new players in to the game.

If A3 has the same approach to bringing players in as A2 had, it´ll end up in a faceplant. It´s not about writing standards, it´s not about ragdoll, it´s not about physics or working rear view mirrors. It´s about getting a game that doesn´t actively punish players for never having played its kind, because apart from CWA and Arma, there are NIL other games like it out there. People don´t KNOW how to play this correctly. They can figure it out, but many people find their time too precious to be wasted with not having fun, trying to learn the ropes without a measure of success or pointers in the right direction.

HL2 works not because it is easy. It works because the game, if it gives you a challenge, first introduces the concept to you, let´s you play with it in a safe environment, and then introduces the fully blown version of the concept with enemies and everything, so the player knows what to do and how.

The OTHER approach is the Dwarf Fortress approach: Loosing is fun. Learn by loosing. A lot.

Valves games work because they approach developing their games from not just a sheer "what would be fun and challenging" approach, but also "how do players perceive this". I would recommend playing the episodes and lost coast with commentary on, lots of valuable things about game design in there. What Arma needs to do is first make players toss all preconceived notions overboard, and then teach them how to be good at the game. One shot one kill, enemies remember where you went, silencers don´t mean you´re noiseless, tanks should be killed from behind, you´re not superman but your team is, etc.

A basic in warrior philosophy. I dunno! Teach them the rifleman´s creed, the army values or something. Any way to pump them up for playing the game RIGHT, instead of trying to play it like CoD and failing.

Edited July 18, 2011 by InstaGoat

[zukov 490]

personally i don't care nothing about AI and SP campaign but graw2 in this case is better

BBNdVU7137U

[dmarkwick 261]

http://uj.furrycat.net/modelling/intro/images/3/contextmenu.gif

take a look at that. It's Maya 3D's context sensitive menu - developed over 20 years of intensive GUI research by Alias Wavefront. As far as I can see, it's essentially what Bohemia have implemented in ArmA and is one of the most effective user command issuing method for 3D applications which enable actions to be performed on multiple entities (units in ArmA's case, polygon vertices in Maya 3D's case)

That, my friend, is a radial menu, exactly as it's not implemented in ArmA. Plus, it's not trying to twitch all the options about because of stuff moving in front of you. So it's different, and acting differently to, ArmA's current system. I find it difficult to believe that you've posted an image of an improved and successful GUI to defend the old one. ArmA's current system involves typing out on the numbers row, or by mousing down a single menu list.

Why? Because over the past 30 years of GUI research it has been proven to be the most effective/efficient method of human-computer interaction. There is no better way to tell a computer what you want it to do.

Not understanding: the general principle of mouse & click on a menu?

As far as I can see, Bohemia have implemented this paradigm pretty we'll and have sucessfully implemented it to enable control of units. It's not perfect but they are definitely on the right tracks. So you guys can hypothosize 'till you're blue in the face, with unsubstantiated claims that "there must be a better alternative". There is not. Not for the current hardware input devices widely used by gamers (ie: mouse and keyboard), not for a game that offers such complexity.

I wish I earned money for each time someone mentioned how something's not possible, then it happens anyway.

If you think it can be done differently and better, show us your GUI designs.

It's been mentioned that the best approach might be a natural selection approach, however I might *just* take you up on that :) If I can justify the time and brain power :D

---------- Post added at 10:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:45 PM ----------

HL2 works not because it is easy. It works because the game, if it gives you a challenge, first introduces the concept to you, let´s you play with it in a safe environment, and then introduces the fully blown version of the concept with enemies and everything, so the player knows what to do and how.

This is true. People here have scoffed at HL2-style gameplay, without realising that the reason it's simple to play is the amount of design that goes into it. You think this stuff just happens? You think, to bring in another example, that the iPhone's GUI is somehow obvious to design because it's simple to use? It is not, those things do not happen by accident.

The OTHER approach is the Dwarf Fortress approach: Loosing is fun. Learn by loosing. A lot.

I don't know of this Dwarf Fortress you've mentioned, but speaking personally how I lose a mission is most often as much fun as completing it. Recovering from a FUBAR is it's own joy :D

Edited July 18, 2011 by DMarkwick

[ghostnineone 10]

i still think there needs to be an easier way to command your squad, and the quick select menu can be annoying as options like to appear and disappear while youre trying to select them

[-)rStrangelove 0]

the quick select menu can be annoying as options like to appear and disappear while youre trying to select them

Yup. There are ppl running around vehicles in MP dodging their guns up & down in helpless attempts to get that bloody green steering wheel to appear. :D

Always fun to watch.

[maddogx 13]

It's even more fun when you're trying to get into a chopper with a whole bunch of people, scroll through the menu and think you've hit the "get in" option, only to suddenly crouch down and place a satchel next to the chopper... people tend to freak out when you do that. :D