Realism (and other subjective hallucinations) vs gameplay.

[dmarkwick 261]

Point one: ArmA 3 is going to be a GAME.

As such, it needs gameplay elements. But, what do these gameplay elements achieve? What is their purpose? To allow the player to cheat? I've seen "cheat" as a description of using ArmA's built-in gameplay elements, which is frankly ridiculous, and is a misconception of the concept "cheat".

No, the gameplay elements are there to replace missing bits of reality. IMO, realism in games is NOT about removing stuff, but about replacing stuff. If you relentlessly remove parts of the game because you cannot see that exact thing IRL, you're missing the point about simulation. Simulation isn't all about making it look the same, it's about giving the info you would have from other, non-PC able mechanisms and translating it into something a PC can render.

Question: how would you simulate the smell of a dead body in ArmA? (Or any smell if you believe that particular example to be meaningless.) I know how I would do it, but as it would be a visual cue there would be people who'd say that IRL they cannot "see" smells and so it shouldn't be shown as visual, end of.

Question: how would you simulate a hurt body part? I know how I would do it, HUD symbol. But IRL I cannot see a HUD symbol of my hurt leg, and so it's unrealistic? Well, it's replacing information that I would feel, with something that I can see. That, to me, is realistic. Forcing someone to have to look at the texture of their legs to work out if they hurt or not, is not realistic. To me. What if my arm is hurt? 3rd person is frowned upon and I cannot reliably look at my arm texture in 1st person. Or my own face. You can see the problem.

As far as HUD info goes, is it realistic to know how many rounds are left in your mag? IMO no, but I'd surely like to know my current weapon in a visual style, I don't accept that IRL I might accidentally fire one weapon because I believed I was holding another weapon. I think most people will accept the idea that simple informational HUD is purely subjective and cannot impact gameplay unfairly.

OK, for this discussion let's agree that extended map info is not realistic, so we can move on. It has some value IMO, but it's not flexible enough to exclude things we might like to exclude.

Crosshairs? Many many people detest crosshairs, and I don't expect to change any opinions about that. I like 'em, because I don't live IRL with no sensation of where I'm pointing. Contrary to popular perception, an unsighted weapon is NOT at the hip, it is still shouldered. IRL I have the sense of proprioception, that sense of what my body is doing without needing to look at it. Because this sense cannot be simulated by ArmA I get a crosshair that shows me where my weapon is pointing, information I would certainly know IRL. A lot of people's main complaint about crosshairs is that they are too accurate, and I might concede that point, although I find them to be not as accurate as sights personally. I'm willing to agree that they could lose that little tiny dot.

Zoom? Again, contrary to popular perception, zoom in ArmA isn't zoom, it's the other way about. Zoomed view is 1:1, and non-zoomed view is wide angle for gameplay/perception. realism players who detest zoom must play the game fully zoomed in rather than artificially wide-angled.

IRL I don't wander the world with a cardboard box over my head with a hole cut into it. But this is exactly the situation with PC FPS gameplay, and a lot of reality cues are gone, needing replacement if reality is to be properly simulated.

3rd person. Ah yes, probably the single most contested gameplay element. Rather hilariously, some people have argued that as 3rd person is not a feature in games like CoD or Battlefield, then it shouldn't be allowed in ArmA. So why is it? And, why is it allowed in VBS? The developers must surely have a rather definite reason for it yes? I might suggest it's a partial replacement for some missing ArmA abilities.

Now, let me say right here, that I agree FULLY with the notion that for PvP & TvT games, that 3rd person is a feature best disabled. And in fact (and maybe also contrary to popular perception ;)) I play without it almost all the time. I'm not out to cheat anyone, or cheat the game, I'm after immersion. All my games that I play only ever end one way - I die. So I don't accept the notion that I cheat the game, I enjoy the game.

The missing abilities in ArmA that I mentioned are fine & subtle movements. If I'm prone behind a low rubble-wall, IRL I would have the ability to peek over, around & through various details without revealing myself. And certainly without having to suddenly lollipop up into crouched or even standing. I don't have the fine control to very quickly pop my head around a corner ever so slightly, only exposing a small slice of my face for a fraction of a second. I don't have the ability to raise my head ever so slightly in the grass so I can see just that little bit more. If I'm crawling amongst rubble, ArmA's collision is not suitable for reliable movements, in the way that 3rd person (or my RL sense of proprioception) allows me to, I cannot do it, and so I need an analogous simulated method.

I know the arguments, and although they have merit, I prefer the 3rd person solution to no solution. IMO it is more "real" than simply denying the visceral knowledge you would glean from a RL situation. Whether you use it to look over a wall that you'd have no RL ability to do so, is really up to you and your sense of gameplay immersion. I don't do it, so although 3rd person is not a perfect solution, it's better than no solution. PvP gameplay notwithstanding as previously mentioned.

My argument is that removing gameplay elements does not necessarily mean more realistic. This post is in response to people who insist that the only solution to improved realism in ArmA is to remove gameplay options. The big clue is the word option. "Realism" is subjective, and so removing gameplay options to force one view of realism does not make *any* sense.

Edited August 19, 2011 by DMarkwick

[Tonci87 163]

Oh come on, do we really need a Thread for this pointless discussion that will end in a huge flamewar anyways?

Ok my Opinion: I like realism. I don"t use crosshairs or 3rd person or Stuff like that and I have absolutely no need for incoming bullet indicators. I have a really good Sourround Headset. But well others do not. So I'm all for the "make it optional route" to make things easier for new players.

Hopefully some of them will accept the challenge and play without that crap once they get the basics.

[maddogx 13]

DMarkwick, I agree 100% with the content of your post (though it could use some structure ;)), but this thread just isn't necessary. The "moar hardcoaarr!!" realism brigade will carry on regardless, and like Tonci said, this discussion has high flamewar potential.

[dmarkwick 261]

Yeah I know, it started as a response to an ArmA3 thread, became longer so I turned it into an ArmA 3 new thread, and eventually became off-topic :D and I wrote too much to toss it away. I acknowledge the flamewar potential, but as this discussion often pops up in lots of other threads I thought maybe it could benefit from having it's own discussion. That way other threads can be kept cleaner. Sound reasonable?

---------- Post added at 12:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:00 PM ----------

Oh come on, do we really need a Thread for this pointless discussion that will end in a huge flamewar anyways?

Ok my Opinion: I like realism. I don"t use crosshairs or 3rd person or Stuff like that and I have absolutely no need for incoming bullet indicators. I have a really good Sourround Headset. But well others do not. So I'm all for the "make it optional route" to make things easier for new players.

Hopefully some of them will accept the challenge and play without that crap once they get the basics.

Hey that's all it needs :) just enough helpers to encourage. I play ArmA in a less-than-optimal sound environment, and I don't get reliable sound positional info. Whether or not I'll like the directional indicators I don't know yet, that'll be a suck-it-and-see thing.

[Defunkt 431]

Depends on your motivations for playing, I'm in it for the immersion. I care less about the possibility that having no crosshair might leave me with a less-than-realistic sense of my own weapon's position than I do about the simple fact that I feel more immersed without crosshairs. Whatever happens to stand for a more accurate model of the real world is a (distant) secondary consideration - I am a willing party to subjective hallucinations.

[dmarkwick 261]

Depends on your motivations for playing, I'm in it for the immersion. I care less about the possibility that having no crosshair might leave me with a less-than-realistic sense of my own weapon's position than I do about the simple fact that I feel more immersed without crosshairs. Whatever happens to stand for a more accurate model of the real world is a (distant) secondary consideration - I am a willing party to subjective hallucinations.

A great post :) see, I'm much more impressed by people saying they simply prefer it that way, rather than saying it should be that way. You say you disable crosshairs not because you feel it's more realistic, but simply a matter of personal immersion? I like it :)

Question: does it bother you to play crosshair-free against people who are using crosshairs? (assuming you play MP at all.) I don't know if it would bother me or not, I'd guess the small advantage gained (if there is one) would be very small.

[CameronMcDonald 146]

Question: does it bother you to play crosshair-free against people who are using crosshairs? (assuming you play MP at all.) I don't know if it would bother me or not, I'd guess the small advantage gained (if there is one) would be very small.

Hasn't bothered me in the past.

I'm happy as long as there are options to turn stuff off. Modularity is awesome.

[Baff1 0]

For me realism is the icing on the cake.

Gameplay is not the part that fills in what realism can't provide.

Gameplay is the reason I am involved. To entertain myself.

Realism is the part that helps me to achieve immersion, or provides an intresting theme for the game I am playing.

The bit that fuels the little idiot in me that keeps saying "If you were in a real war... you would rock as a soldier".

Edited August 19, 2011 by Baff1

[NoRailgunner 0]

Maybe its easier for server admins to have a preset of options they can simply choose + activate? Of course the A2OA (CO) mp browser could use some userfriendly settings and descriptions/mission infos too...

Guess some people are just afraid that there won't be any public "sim" or "veteran" server because many players could stay + play on easy-peasy level. There is a difference between HUD stuff (incl. crosshair) on/off... ;)

Options are great as long as all players are able to choose them or those are set for all players via mission/server settings. :)

[Big Dawg KS 6]

It is my opinion that realism should support the gameplay and never restrict it. If the developers want to impose a realism-related restriction on players that's fine as long as it supports some gameplay element, but imposing restrictions just because it doesn't mimic real life is too extreme IMO. In otherwords, disabling third-person just for the sake of realism adds less to the gameplay than it takes away.

I also don't consider realism and immersion to be the same thing (which is one of the things that bothers me most about a lot of the realism arguments here). I can be immersed in an unrealistic game just as I can be unimmersed in a very realistic game. It all depends on the situation, but IMO minimalistic HUDs such as the one in ArmA are typically more immersive than a lot of games with no HUD (and use stupid-looking indicators to fill in the missing information).

[rangerpl 13]

I think that, for the hardcore fans, BIS should release an ArmA 3-compatible treadmill that you have to run on to make your character move, as well as a 50 pound backpack and a customized, 17-pound controller that you must carry at all times but cannot fire without explicit orders.

[HyperU2 11]

I could use the exercise.

[Innomadic 10]

I can aim just fine without the crosshairs when unscoped, just sayin.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Smell? I don't understand the relevance. This ain't dogs life.

Hurt/Stance - I have no objections to a HUD (on demand) system. Models may lack blood textures, and I'm pretty sure I would know I was hurt while driving a tank. Pulsating bloodscreen can tell he how hurt I am, or if I'm bleeding out, but it fails to tell me where I'm hurt. "Better get up and run for cover" - "Oh crap, I'm all outta legs". Some may find this to clutter the screen and break immersion, which is why I would like to have it "On Demand". You can't think of it as a cheat as it doesn't give you an advantage, and certainly not an unrealistic one.

Bullet Count - Mixed feelings. Some mags are transparent allowing decent count, and newer bullet counting devices for MGs are coming already. It tend to be forced equal for everyone as well, so there is no advantage or disadvantage here.

Extended Map - Useful for special kinds of games (particularly RTS), and for recruit difficulty mode to ease the process for those new to the game. It does simulate expected information flow between you and your AI that can't happen in a game, but I'd prefer if this was left to SP games or very special MP game modes (RTS). But recruit difficulty will suffice.

Crosshairs - Make them not provide an advantage, and I have no issues with them. I've shown how the rectangular (not diamond, that fails) shape whose size depend on weapon dexterity allows input GUI without being able to snipe without using sights (through grass if combined with 3rd person I might add). Sure, that idea might allow you to interpolate to find the center, but the size and shape makes you use a lot of time doing it, so the guy at the other end who tries to play the immersive game, now actually have a chance of using his sights. However, as I mostly play cooperative games, the "fair" aspect isn't a real worry for me. My issue is that I can't get rid of it for all the servers that have them on. Try using lasers at night as only aiming device (not any kind of sights), and the damned thing is in the way!

Zoom - I have no issues. Works as intended, and I agree in its design and purpose.

3rd person. I have really no more to add than what I've said before in earlier threads about this. But given that even "arcady games" feels 3rd person is too much (at least for infantry work), I think it should be disabled for infantry as long as you don't command AI.

Best approach as I see it, to fix the issue:

* Script commands to set difficulties on a per unit base. Allows mission specific difficulties per unit, rather than server dictated ones that may not fit all game modes. I could ask user: "How do you prefer to command your troops" - "3rd person/Tactical" or "Map clicking"? And enable respective commanding style while preventing exploiting the other.

* Allow player to set higher difficulty than defined on server/unit, but not lower.

* Crosshairs that remove the ability to snipe with them, which still providing an input device indicator for TIR users.

* HUD on demand, like i.e. by holding the command key (spacebar).

* Review the current difficulty schemes. My own suggestions:

Expert: Force on TAKOH based flight model (look at the other forced settings here before complaining :)). Script commands to force no autotrim probably exist already, when needed.

Veteran: Force off 3rd person, crosshairs, and extended map info. I'd love these to be more nuanced though, than on/off.

Regular: Force off at least extended map info.

Recruit: No restrictions.

When I join a Veteran server, I expect the level of difficulty to be above average level. I'll happily play on Expert level too, but it does require communications between players to have a chance, so not very well suited for the average public game. Let Veteran mean something...

Another thing: Let player see the difficulty settings (when mouse is hovering over the difficulty mode) before actually joining the server. Waste of bandwidth and time when downloading mission only to find you can't play on those rules.

Edited August 20, 2011 by CarlGustaffa

[dmarkwick 261]

Well I haven't seen anything yet in this thread to disagree with :) As I sort of suspected, most people on the forums have more to agree about than disagree.

[dmarkwick 261]

Smell? I don't understand the relevance. This ain't dogs life.

It's a way of getting you to think about how to simulate something that has no obvious ingame analog. It's possible to be so used to thinking that "no HUD is the most realistic" paradigm that you forget that some things need an analog. And when I say you, I mean not you specifically :)