AI Squad Command - to be brushed aside in A3?

[metalcraze 290]

More user friendly as in built in tutorial hints and not being forced to lead a squad if you dont want to :), thus the option to go the lone wolf path or if you like leading squads you can be a commander.

And how are BIS devs going to achieve this?

The amount of enemies, the size of mission area for a single person should be totally different from a guy bringing a squad (or maybe several of them) with him. Unless BIS found some magical design solution they will have to dumb down missions for them to be completable for a Hollywood lone wolf - but for commanders they will be too easy.

Also keep in mind that BIS is a bussines, they need income to survive. The more people that buy it and decide to stick with the series, the better.Lot's of players consider a games SP campaign the entry point. Making the campaign more user friendly helps smooth the process of getting into ArmA and then understanding it better.

Simple SP campaign won't help as CoD kidz will go on crying about the game when they will catch their first bullet. But it will also hurt the game for us.

[Beagle 684]

The tendency to have accessible forgiving playability over brutal and unforgiving realism is clearly visible in the series progression all the years...why should it stop with A3?

Remeber OFP... one hit and you're dead...no helping unit markers, massive drop low power and short range with AT tubes etc.

Today in A2 we have an arcade game with tab-kill-bot option and radar for vehicle drivers.

[Maio 293]

As I said before, they have to cater to new players... They cant keep a game the same for 10 years if they want to bring in new players to the series.

If you watched the GC video with Martin V. he said that they are not removing featues, they are adding and improving the already exsiting ones. Last I checked the A.I. sqaud command is one of those features.

The campaign info states that you can command units .... or you can go John Rambo. So now you have options for both game styles.

I don't think it can be more clear than that.

Some of you are over reacting. It's almost like you want to believe that ArmA 3 will be dumbed down to run&gun/rail shooter level , so that you can complain more and act all "I'm better than a COD player, Y U no make game like I want BIS ?!"

Edited September 12, 2011 by Maio

[metalcraze 290]

As I said before, they have to cater to new players... They cant keep a game the same for 10 years if they want to bring in new players to the series.

So what you are saying is that all players who could wrap their head around even current, simplified vanilla ArmA2 are already here and there is no one but stupid players left?

In that case why do we need stupid players? Public gaming in ArmA2 is already a very very sad picture compared to how it was in OFP.

The campaign info states that you can command units .... or you can go John Rambo. So now you have options for both game styles.

I don't think it can be more clear than that.

But why would I need to command units if I can just go John Rambo?

What will be the point? I already can kill everyone by myself, so commanding units will mean the game will become even easier.

Some of you are over reacting. It's almost like you want to believe that ArmA 3 will be dumbed down to run&gun/rail shooter level , so that you can complain more and act all "I'm better than a COD player, Y U no make game like I want BIS ?!"

Every time a developer says "we have to reach the wider audience" it means exactly that - dumbing down.

The lower you go, the more CoD kidz you encounter.

And it isn't about feeling better about myself. We already have people crying "zomg AI sees me through 10 walls can you make it blind and deaf?"/"zomg I'm firing at AI then I start running and it detects me"/"zomg why can't I use 1m long weapon in 50cm corridors?"/"why do I need to finish step when moving I want floating camera" as it is. And of course the crowning "BIS please cut out AI"

Edited September 12, 2011 by metalcraze

[Maio 293]

So what you are saying is that all players who could wrap their head around even current, simplified vanilla ArmA2 are already here and there is no one but stupid players left?

In that case why do we need stupid players? Public gaming in ArmA2 is already a very very sad picture compared to how it was in OFP.

No :) I'm saying that players that never played a "mil sim" ( be they RTS players, RPG players ,etc) , can get into the game and understand the concept a lot easier now beacuse BIS included tutorial hints in the campaign besides the 15 tutorial missions and you can choose if you wish to lead a sqaud or not.

I never used the word stupid :)

But why would I need to command units if I can just go John Rambo?

What will be the point? I already can kill everyone by myself, so commanding units will mean the game will become even easier.

How would you feel if you were a long time RTS player and wanted to try ArmA for the first time. Wouldnt you be a tad bit more relaxed knowing that you have options on how you can play it?

Every time a developer says "we have to reach the wider audience" it means exactly that - dumbing down.

The lower you go, the more CoD kidz you encounter.

That applys mostly to cross platform games, BIS have done nothing to prove they turned it into rail shooter.

Also regarding the COD kids...

Back when I played SWAT 4, I played with a guy who also was into COD 4 MP and he played it like a maniac (very competitve and a cry baby), yet when he switched to CO-OP in SWAT 4 he was a different man. ( calculated, tactical, helpfull to new players).

Moral: Don't be so quick to stamp someone as a COD kiddie, you may be surprised :)

And it isn't about feeling better about myself. We already have people crying "zomg AI sees me through 10 walls can you make it blind and deaf?"/"zomg I'm firing at AI then I start running and it detects me"/"zomg why can't I use 1m long weapon in 50cm corridors?"/"why do I need to finish step when moving I want floating camera" as it is. And of course the crowning "BIS please cut out AI"

Did anything in ArmA 3 point out that it will acomodate any of the complains above :) ? Besides bug fixing and small tweaks, I doubt BIS will remove the body of the player and stick a gun to the camera.

[metalcraze 290]

No :) I'm saying that players that never played a "mil sim" ( be they RTS players, RPG players ,etc) , can get into the game and understand the concept a lot easier now beacuse BIS included tutorial hints in the campaign besides the 15 tutorial missions and you can choose if you wish to lead a sqaud or not.

I never used the word stupid :)

But that's how it sounded. ArmA is not a complicated game. It's just a shooter with character. Anyone can understand it. I don't consider myself a smart guy and I had no problem understanding OFP - so why should anyone have problems with ArmA?

There won't be any choice really. If the game will be balanced specifically so a lone wolf can complete it (which goes against the core principle of the whole series - showing a real war) - it will make the game incredibly boring for commanders. Attacking the objective with 8 guys guarding it alone or with a squad is a huge difference (as main quests won't be procedurally generated). You can't cater to both camps at once.

It won't teach newcomers to play the game, the moment they will go online to some relatively adequate server they will be shocked by the need to play the game tactically and an inevitable veteran difficulty.

Did anything in ArmA 3 point out that it will acomodate any of the complains above :) ? Besides bug fixing and small tweaks, I doubt BIS will remove the body of the player and stick a gun to the camera.

I'm not talking extremes. Of course BIS will not butcher the game like that since it will mean its death as they will not be able to compete with CoD and BF.

However they are more than able to dumb it down to a lesser degree. Saw GamesCom videos? I'm talking about optics with magical built-in real-time rangefinders. And something tells me rocket drop won't be put back in either.

[Maio 293]

You could go lone wolf in the ArmA 2 campaign as well you know :). You just had to give the hold order to your team and go John Rambo on the Chedaki, even though the campaign was designed around Razor team.

The only difference is that know, they wont force the command screen on you.

So you see, besides more options, nothing changed :)

[ghost101 10]

Funny, you don't see fans on the official Battlefield forum with signatures mocking their own game: "DICE Y U no make Battlefield a more dumb and less complex game like WEEEE the community want!!!1one!!two!" They seem to love their unrealistic game, just as most of us love our more tactical and complex game. That's not "thinking you're better than CoD gamers" - that's just a difference in gaming preference.

maionaze, are you SURE you're a real ArmA fan? Because you sound like some kind of Battlefield infiltrator trying to convince the ArmA community that it has a chance to compete with BF and CoD's mainstream popularity. If you are then it's a brilliant tactic for someone wishing to destroy the ArmA series as ArmA has no chance to compete with these games and will fail if it tries. Relative realism and tactical play is ArmA's strength. You do not need to dilute the game for people attracted to this type of game, they are not as scared of "complexity" as your average CoD fan.

Like metalcraze, I also cannot see where this myth that ArmA is "difficult to play" comes from? I certainly can't see many people complaining about it on the forums. It just seems an excuse to make the game more appealing to a wider audience.

[metalcraze 290]

You could go lone wolf in the ArmA 2 campaign as well you know :). You just had to give the hold order to your team and go John Rambo on the Chedaki, even though the campaign was designed around Razor team.

What a coincidence - ArmA2 campaign was also the worst BIS campaign before PMC came out.

Also you can add the lack of blinding sun to the "We are not going to cut anything out"-irony list.

[Maio 293]

Funny, you don't see fans on the official Battlefield forum with signatures mocking their own game: "DICE Y U no make Battlefield a more dumb and less complex game like WEEEE the community want!!!1one!!two!" They seem to love their unrealistic game, just as most of us love our more tactical and complex game. That's not "thinking you're better than CoD gamers" - that's just a difference in gaming preference.

My signiture is there to mock the whinners who associated the future with lack of realism :)

I would comment more on this, but I would be reapeting myself the third or forth time so there is no point.

maionaze, are you SURE you're a real ArmA fan? Because you sound like some kind of Battlefield infiltrator trying to convince the ArmA community that it has a chance to compete with BF and CoD's mainstream popularity. If you are then it's a brilliant tactic for someone wishing to destroy the ArmA series as ArmA has no chance to compete with these games and will fail if it tries. Relative realism and tactical play is ArmA's strength. You do not need to dilute the game for people attracted to this type of game, they are not as scared of "complexity" as your average CoD fan.

:confused:

Like metalcraze, I also cannot see where this myth that ArmA is "difficult to play" comes from? I certainly can't see many people complaining about it on the forums. It just seems an excuse to make the game more appealing to a wider audience.

I never said that ArmA campaigns are hard, nor do I believe that they need dumbing down. I was expressing my point of view on BIS's deccission to make squad command optional in order to give the new guys to the series a smoother ride through the campaign. Then the new guys can play as commanders on their next playthrough. That's it ...

Would a BIS dev like to comment something on this or are we providing enterteinment of such qualitty that it's worth letting it go on for a tad bit longer :cool:

Edited September 12, 2011 by Maio
t