The trouble with getting people into Arma

[antoineflemming 14]

Whatever the case the Arma series still sells well.It doesn't need changes to make it "user friendly".If its hard then some should use their brains and learn it.I don't want to see it turn into COD,MOH,or BF."Accessable" to me is a bad word and that philosphy has destroyed the mechanics of several pieces of software out there.(Rainbow six and its removal of the planning system comes to mind)It isn't all about Multiplayer either.Another huge plus for Arma is the editor and the vast amount of very well made single player campaigns and missions.

Leave it alone.Take away whats made the series sucessful and you will lose the main base of customers.The reason people get into OFP/Arma is because they want something more immersive and realistic then the overload of hollywood style first person shooting games out there that I consider garbage.

But what do you think will be taken away? Accessible doesn't mean simple necessarily. To make something accessible is to make it more approachable, to make it more user friendly. There is nothing wrong with anything being user friendly. Accessible doesn't mean hollywood either. Jokubas mentioned that ArmA was not intuitive. So I don't see where hollywood shooters come in. COD, MOH, and BF were not mentioned at all. So why should you bring those games up? I understand you want to rant, but do so when it is actually appropriate, please. I'm sure you think ArmA is perfect as is. But if so, then why make ArmA 3? I mean, if there's nothing that should be changed, why should BIS change things like animations, or clouds, or sound, or add hand animations for driving, or anything for that matter? Why not just update ArmA2/OA/BAF/PMC and call it a day? When did anyone suggest lessening the immersion or realism?

[dr_zakharotta 10]

There's plenty of "games" available for people that want to shoot guns. There's one sandbox. I really don't want to think that my sandbox will have all the sand taken out so that people can play the "game" without having patience or having to learn how it works.

I firmly believe that the CoDBlOpers and BFoons or "gamers" shouldn't be catered to at all. They won't stay with ArmA (as your friends have proven) and they won't improve the community or the game at all. Changing the interface and gameplay to make A3 more appealing to that type of player is just a disservice to the rest of us.

I realize BIS wants to make A3 more attractive to new players, but I just hope the sandbox/toybox/simulation aspect of ArmA isn't lost for the sake of transient players.

if this is subsim/ED/BIS kylania, I'll say AHOY ME MATEY!! I agree with the above confessing I'm a gamer, not an orthodox simmer. Nevertheless, I sometimes resort to simming and editing when I have inspiration. So the part of not catering gamers I dont approve. I think BIS could add an option for arcade mode gaming, like ED for instance.

[MusicforMovies 1]

I think BIS could add an option for arcade mode gaming, like ED for instance.

Dead against 'arcade' mode. But before I go into that let's focus on areas where I think Arma can be improved.

1.) More intuitive command interface - if there is a way to keep the complexity - i.e. the number of different commands that can be given - but make the U.I. more clear and easier to use I'm all for it.

2.) Smoother animations

3.) A more 'focused' Single Player mode - i.e. the excellent story telling and missions of the original OFP for example.

Now having said that... whenever I hear the words: mainstream gamer, console, causal gamer, accessible, inclusion, or arcade I get worried.

Why?

Because I've seen classic series gone to crap, pure utter crap, by making them 'more accessible' to reach a 'broader' base. 'Rainbow' series I'm looking at you for example. What normally happens is less choices, less options, FORCED linear game play, and zero difference from any half-baked shooters out there. Worst case you get games that were once awesome on PC turned into simplified arcade games on a console and than a crap port back to the PC.

What makes Arma great is the realism, the open sandbox, the slower-paced action - everything that makes the 'causal' gamer enjoys the mainstream shooters, but have a tough time getting into Arma.

If want to play fast-past, claustrophobic - spawn camp filled MP - I'd play one of the other shooters out there, but if I want realism, tactical thinking, thinking on the fly, I play Arma.

Arma is a niche market, just like sub sims, but those sims that are faithful do maintain a good solid base of supporters. You are never going to get 'causal' gamers to play, nor would you want to I think.

Arma is more of a hobby than a game as on poster pointed out.

I'm all for improving aspects of Arma, but ANY suggestion of making this faster-paced, 'arcade' or linear would ruin what makes Arma great in my opinion. Just my two cents.

[MusicforMovies 1]

I apologize if this is a repost so I'll keep this short just in case. I say no to 'arcade mode' or making this game more 'accessible' to console or casual gamers.

I AM for improving aspects of Arma that are lacking. 1.) Improved U.I., 2.) Smoother animations when it comes to NPCs and Player, and 3.) Better story telling, voice acting, missions - i.e. such as we had in the original OFP, but..

Slower-paced, open sandbox, on the fly tactical thinking, and freedom of choices in a situation, is what makes Arma great - Remove those and you MIGHT reach causal gamers, but you'll kill the heart of Arma at the same time.

If I want fast paced action I'll go play one of the other mainstream shooters, but please keep Arma.. Arma. Otherwise you'll have a repeat of the once awesome 'Rainbow' series turned arcade crap.

---------- Post added at 08:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:00 PM ----------

The bottom line! Coop ruined this awesome game!

Co-op is the reason I even play MP as it is dang near impossible to find any co-op missions on other games - it's all death match - shoot, run, shoot, camp, shoot.. shoot blindly.. don't think.. respawn..yawn.

Co-op is what makes Arma unique, special, and dare I say.. 'awesome.'

[Tom1 10]

^ what he said.

This is my idea of making arma more accesable.

Making the game more mainstream however is a different story. Not only will that kill arma but it will fail in the mainstream market against CoD and BF and other bigger budget and more experienced arcade, mainstreme shooters.

[djfluffwug 10]

I will go through a few of the aspects of ArmA and how I think it could be improved.

World

Now, we all know the worlds are large in the ArmA series. Biggest world I have seen in an FPS. But, the problem I see with the worlds in ArmA is there is not enough differentiation between areas around the map. Maybe a slightly different town layout but the area's just feel empty and plain. Also, when I see the same vegetation spread around the map it feels a little reptitive.

What needs to be done is to really have differentiated environments around the map. The large cliffs with rivers cascading down the sheer rockfaces, the swampy marshlands with shrubs, harshly battered trees, and a stale murky water. The mountains covered in small vegetation and deep caves to explore.

With a differentiating environment, players get interested in the landscape, and tend to explore it. Even when explored for 15 minutes, it still feels like there is more to be found. If this could be implemented, this would really add to the players immersion and ultimately improve players chances of enjoying the game and recommending to friends.

AI

Now, I think another reason people don't get into ArmA is because of the AI.

I realise AI in an open world military game is going to be really hard to program but it should be a focus. At the moment, the AI is good at shooting and pretty good at using military tactics, but they fail to show human behavior. They act more like robots than humans. There voices sound robotic, their movement looks robotic and they seem to show no sign of being human. If this could be improved upon, I think it would be a great step towards improving ArmA and then I believe people would get into it more.

Tutorials

I know this has been talked about before but I just wanted to reinforce my view on it. As we all know, there are tonnes of controls in the ArmA series. So many aspects of the game require all these controls but I don't think they are explained to the players properly. The tutorials in ArmA 2 go over the basics (Sort of) but really don't explain them fully. I don't think the player is taught about how the inventory works for example. It may seem instinctive to you how everything works but the new players will feel threatened by the complexity of ArmA and without things being properly explained to them, they are likely to just leave in frustration. If the tutorials could properly explain the main aspects, it would really help the player feel more at home. Also, maybe while in loading screens, tips for features or controls could be shown. For example: "Did you know: Weapons can be modified for different situations by pressing Shift+M".

Movement

Now, before you light your torches and get your pitchforks, I am not going to say how Call Of Duty's movement system is superior since that game is aimed at fun deathmatch style gameplay rather than simulating war. But, what I have noticed in ArmA 2 is that there seems to be a slight delay between pressing a key and having something happen. For example, when I press W, there seems to be about a 20-30ms delay between actually the key being pressed and starting to move. I am not talking about speeding up, because I know you can't instantly start running at full speed, but it seems that there is a delay before something even starts to happen. I don't know if this is a bug or them trying to simulate reaction time. If it is reaction time, then I am slightly confused because we (The humans) are the ones with the reaction time and not the avatar in game. If I have reaction time and the avatar also has reaction time, it is just making double reaction time which isn't realistic.

Anyway, I could keep going but that is just a few of my thoughts on how to get people into ArmA with improvements to the game.

[taz838 1]

I will go through a few of the aspects of ArmA and how I think it could be improved.

Movement

Now, before you light your torches and get your pitchforks, I am not going to say how Call Of Duty's movement system is superior since that game is aimed at fun deathmatch style gameplay rather than simulating war. But, what I have noticed in ArmA 2 is that there seems to be a slight delay between pressing a key and having something happen. For example, when I press W, there seems to be about a 20-30ms delay between actually the key being pressed and starting to move. I am not talking about speeding up, because I know you can't instantly start running at full speed, but it seems that there is a delay before something even starts to happen. I don't know if this is a bug or them trying to simulate reaction time. If it is reaction time, then I am slightly confused because we (The humans) are the ones with the reaction time and not the avatar in game. If I have reaction time and the avatar also has reaction time, it is just making double reaction time which isn't realistic.

Anyway, I could keep going but that is just a few of my thoughts on how to get people into ArmA with improvements to the game.

Thought I might aswell make an account :D

I am new to ARMA and the main point I am interested in ARMA 3 is the complexity and depth it has. It is something that many people would want in a game, and this game seems to have the level of tactical awareness and team work required to make a game that has a phenomenal atmosphere, that is original and satisfying.

As a new player I really hope that BIS do not dumb down the complexity which is the main selling point for me. Sadly I am going to name drop Battlefield 3, the follow up to Battlefield 2. Battlefield 3 is not a bad game at all, but stands nowhere near the complexity and depth Battlefield 2 had. All I hope is that BIS make a true follow up to ARMA 2.

I agree with the movement problem 100%, reactions should happen straight away, but added animations are always a nice feature.

[Corporal_Hicks 1]

The trouble with getting people into Arma

The problem getting my friends into ARMA 2 is the fact that the game is not very good optimized. They want to play it, but their PC's barely run it. I hope ARMA 3 will be more optimized for more systems, so it can run nice without sacrificing so much options on PC which can run Crysis on high lets say. Yes, ARMA have thousands of units at the same time but I am not even talking about the moment when we have thousands units on the map, but the standard numbers :D

[antoineflemming 14]

~wrong thread...

[Montanaro 0]

don't dumb down the game. Tripwire Interactive did that....now it's lucky if 1,000 people turn the game on at somepoint during a day...after a 75% off sale.

[Cripsis 10]

I think these articles are relevent to this topic -

http://www.joystiq.com/2011/12/29/uk-ministry-of-defence-finds-modern-shooters-more-realistic-than

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/dec/28/ministry-defence-war-games-xbox

[purepassion 22]

:confused: This is not about Arma!

[igneous01 19]

as others have said, there are plenty of fps games around that have what people are requesting here. But so far there is only one sandbox game that gives user creativity.

[LeeManatee 4]

making arma "arcade" etc will ruin a game. we love arma because this game is unique in comparision to whole mainstream fps games.

if arma 3 will become any "arcade" type i would not buy this game.

priority list to make people stay at arma:

1) BIS should better optimize the game ( tho i upgraded pc now and then just for arma, then arma 2 ;p worth it. )

2) focus on multiplayer. really. i dont give a dam about campaigns, missions etc. Multiplayer is way more fun. And here i actually started to understand most of aspects of gameplay, and the reason why i stayed with arma for ages. (arma was my 1st game from series)). There are some game modes such as evo, domi, tdm. just improve these modes, add em on mp missions list in game already. Try to find out how to organize players on mp to make em work as team. This will improve the gameplay x1000 times.

Multiplayer is most probably the only reason why people buy arma and don't download it from somewhere else.

3) make some tutorials... or ask some communities sites to create/upload some and choose the best.

4) fix some details such as throtle on joystick. (make it possible to change % of power or whatever it called like ) annoying to fly with things how it is now. and other details..

5) ragdoll... ehh.. there is no need in ragdolls if it will be glitchy / buggy. Better something old what works well then something new and crappy. I'm fine as it is with default death animations.

overall: no need to add some extra stuff which will be fixed by numerous of patches again and again.

Just polish the game, fix few things and it will be perfect.

my 2 cents?

once again multiplayer, multiplayer, multiplayer.

Edited December 30, 2011 by n7snk

[PuFu 4600]

1. Optimize is such a generic word. even so everyone who has no idea about the "under bonnet" use it

2. While YOU couldn't be bothered with SP, others are. Evolution/Domination whatever else are exactly the MP missions with the least teamwork, so i see no reason for BI to add them to the vanilla gamemodes

5. how do you know if it will be glitchy or buggy? I for one welcome their addition

[Clarkey1 10]

@Crispis: This is VBS2 though. It still runs VR2 doesn't it? So maybe just wait for VBS2 2.0 for graphics improvements. Instead of going from scratch with a new engine (which doesn't have an SDK yet AFAIK). Anyway this is still a different game from different dev's.

As far as ArmA2/VR3 goes it has some of the nicest textures I've seen in a game. Huge maps, tons of toys, thousands of mods/addons. The lighting/physical simulation leaves something to be desired but is being worked on for Arma3/VR4. I guess the learning curve, can be a turn off to some people but that's something that is also being worked on for A3 apparently. I guess to sum it up it probably won't be as much trouble for people to get into ArmA3 as it was any previous titles. Only time will tell.

[JellBro 0]

If Arma was running a bit smoother and you'd be able to have good game moments if

you have only 1 or 2 hours playtime in the evening ( that is with two kids), then

Arma would be more attractive.

Now what happens in multiplayer is that you have no clue what to do in certain missions. There is no transport (or need high rank first) or others take it away in front of you. Walking half an hour is no option 'cause it's the end of the day by then. Most of the time when playing online there is little action in long playtime ( that's just my experience).

When i was < 30's i had the time for it and played it (OFP:CWC, OFP:RH,OFP:R ARMA1) a lot. Now i'm sticking mostly to Battlefield 3 (love the destruction) though i bought all BIS' Arma games and play the single player missions/campaigns.

As far as realism goes: sitting behind a computer, comfortable and warm with beer and chips at close range has nothing to do with anything realistic.

I'd like BIS to keep ARMA3 a game and let others make it as "realistic" as they want, like what happend with OFP.

Of our LAN-party-going-group (OFP-times) not one is playing Arma anymore, sadly.

[LeeManatee 4]

1. Optimize is such a generic word. even so everyone who has no idea about the "under bonnet" use it

okay. i got core i7 2600, gtx 580 3gb vram and 8gb ram, but arma2 still lags on maximized. seriously, wtf?

2. While YOU couldn't be bothered with SP, others are. Evolution/Domination whatever else are exactly the MP missions with the least teamwork, so i see no reason for BI to add them to the vanilla gamemodes

did you read what i just posted?..

i didn't say that evo and domi as they are now are great teamwork game modes. thats why i said:

just improve these modes, add em on mp missions list in game already. Try to find out how to organize players on mp to make em work as team.

when game is out it will be way better if this kind of missions will be avaible, then waiting untill some1 will make em. May be not exact evo/domi but fine and good quality pve mission/missions.

the topic of this thread is how to make people to stay in arma. i suggest to focus on multiplayer more then sp

5. how do you know if it will be glitchy or buggy? I for one welcome their addition

from what i seen current ragdoll model is nothing more then just funny.

Th3fjxyedMY

1:45 - pretty much realistic?

and after being shot to death soldiers becoming a ragdolls without ropes.. literally..

Edited December 30, 2011 by n7snk

[dmarkwick 261]

from what i seen current ragdoll model is nothing more then just funny.

...

1:45 - pretty much realistic?

Looks OK to me. I certainly prefer it to rigid death animations.

and after being shot to death soldiers becoming a ragdolls without ropes.. literally..

Yes, that's ragdoll, I can't imagine what else you might have expected to see ;)

[LeeManatee 4]

Yes, that's ragdoll, I can't imagine what else you might have expected to see ;)

emm.. atleast make it look a bit more realistic like they were made of somewhat else then rag. like more heavy and less flexible

soldiers loosing all bones / skeleton after being shot?..

[PuFu 4600]

If Arma was running a bit smoother and you'd be able to have good game moments if

you have only 1 or 2 hours playtime in the evening ( that is with two kids), then

Arma would be more attractive.

Now what happens in multiplayer is that you have no clue what to do in certain missions. There is no transport (or need high rank first) or others take it away in front of you. Walking half an hour is no option 'cause it's the end of the day by then. Most of the time when playing online there is little action in long playtime ( that's just my experience)

While i am more or less in the same boat with you, the problem you described is related to the missions played on most servers, rather than the game itself (although the "unique" controls and animations doesn't help either). There can be missions where made for less players than are more action packed and take no more than 1:30 mins to complete.

okay. i got core i7 2600, gtx 580 3gb vram and 8gb ram, but arma2 still lags on maximized. seriously, wtf?

why are you playing on max settings then?

And it doesn't lag (as that is related to network), you either got low FPS or stutter.

Never said the game is perfect from a hardware requirement POV, but then again, what do you mean by optimization? Lower polycount for geometry, lower sized textures and overall numbers? Yes, the game is quite demanding, especially on the HDD transfer rates and CPU cylces needed. But then again you have nothing to compare it with...

did you read what i just posted?..

i didn't say that evo and domi as they are now are great teamwork game modes. thats why i said

when game is out it will be way better if this kind of missions will be avaible, then waiting untill some1 will make em.

That is your own POV.

I for one NEVER play the public missions like evolution, domination or whatever else you talk about, so i couldn't care less about them. I still believe that these sort of never ending missions where the scope is to kill thousands of AIs to get your OWN score higher are not team oriented.

May be not exact evo/domi but fine and good quality pve mission/missions.

There are plenty available. It's just that most public servers choose to run the above mentioned one since they require little maintenance from a game admin, and can be hosted for days.

from what i seen current ragdoll model is nothing more then just funny.

1:45 - pretty much realistic?

Really. Is that the finished product you post a video about?

What you have seen is the raw implementation of ragdolls, 1+ year before the game is scheduled to hit the stores. BIS stated that they just added those before E3, so there was little to no time to tweak their behavior.

Same goes for the vehicle physix, which have been improved quite a lot from what was demoed at E3...

and after being shot to death soldiers becoming a ragdolls without ropes.. literally..

I don't know what's your own experience with ragdolls, but i can tell you that while not perfect, it's a lot better than rigid death anims, and one can set their weight and the amount of gravity that affects them, so they don't behave like a bunch of feather-filled dolls.

Edited December 30, 2011 by PuFu
typos

[dmarkwick 261]

I agree that most commercial applications of ragdoll are rather light and bouncy. But I've never seen any ragdoll that hasn't got definite bones, so maybe that's your perception of it. I will agree though that ArmA3's implementation would benefit from increased weight/mass and less conserved energy (bounce).

[LeeManatee 4]

why are you playing on max settings. And it doesn't lag (as that is related to network), you either got low FPS or stutter.

gettin low on fps

also my network connection is okay 7,7 mb

That is your own POV.

I for one NEVER play the public missions like evolution, domination or whatever else you talk about, so i couldn't care less about them. I still believe that these sort of never ending missions where the scope is to kill thousands of AIs to get your OWN score higher are not team oriented.

the topic of this thread is how to make people to stay in arma. i suggest to focus on multiplayer more then sp. or atleast equal.

[dmarkwick 261]

IMO the best way to get more people to play is to simply make it playable as soon as possible, which for the most part means an excellent UI. Now, we all love ArmA but most of us agree the UI needs work.

[PuFu 4600]

IMO the best way to get more people to play is to simply make it playable as soon as possible, which for the most part means an excellent UI. Now, we all love ArmA but most of us agree the UI needs work.

not only the UI, which is something most would agree with. (plus, ui related as well - no more hidden cfg settings, no more switches for power users).

The game needs to be playable from version 1.0. That means no more quirks and game-breaking bugs.

With A2, there were plenty of issues that have been patched along the way in A1 that made a re-appearance in 1.0 version of A2. That shit shouldn't happen anymore. The game needs to be in a playable state in order to attract and keep then close to this iteration.

just my 2 euro cents anyhow