The trouble with getting people into Arma

[maturin 12]

It's going to be difficult to attract new players with a teaser like that when other game developers are releasing trailers like this -

That was a real-life recruiting commercial, not a game trailer.

And Starcraft 2 trailers don't overshadow previews for games like Europa Universalis anymore than HAWKZ overshadows DCS. If you're looking to get fans by wowing them with shallow CGI that doesn't reflect your game, chances are we don't want those players anyways.

[norsu 180]

BIS need to find the magic trick to make new people get into the world of Armaverse. How do you convince someone who has never played a game like this to enjoy it?

The basic principle is very easy. Make ARMA 3 more accessible while retaining the uniqueness of the series. How to achieve that should be the main question here :).

Improving animations and movement in general is only one of the many important issues. In addition to that there's multiplayer accessibility, single player campaign that doesn't fall apart and has low learning curve, smooth user interface, AI which doesn't require babysitting and follows orders, better collision detection, physics etc.

[antoineflemming 14]

Actually read the fucking posts. I said the precise opposite.

I want ArmA's complex, highly precise and variable movement options, but dislike the flawed animation transitions and roadblocks that make it clunky and frustrating.

Now that we have all your strawmen and false dichotomies behind us...

MadDogX was impeccably clear. It is you who have not comprehended his post.

Ah, I see. I mistook your "no COD or BF movement" comment to mean the "seamless" BF3 animations.

Point is, they are revamping the system, so yeah, they're not getting rid of it. Probably a large part is adding in better transitions, maybe even changing some animations.

Issues I see with certain animations:

running/sprinting w/ sidearm

running/sprinting w/o weapons

sprinting in general (idk, something's always bothered me about swinging the arms really wide when sprinting; could be just me though)

walking animation for crouch stance (mainly with the weapon lowered). Something just looks weird about it.

Of course transitions.

Not trying to make this an ArmA 3 request, but animations I think are one of the biggest detractors to people coming in. Because, yes, the learning curve is kinda steep, but the feel of the game (as in the movement, the animations) is about the first thing a player is going to face.

Although some BF3 animations (well, at least one) are better than ArmA2's. The prone animation (third-person) is more accurate, at least in the U.S. Army. A Soldier tucks the weapon, and high-crawls with his elbows.

The basic principle is very easy. Make ARMA 3 more accessible while retaining the uniqueness of the series. How to achieve that should be the main question here :).

Improving animations and movement in general is only one of the many important issues. In addition to that there's multiplayer accessibility, single player campaign that doesn't fall apart and has low learning curve, smooth user interface, AI which doesn't require babysitting and follows orders, better collision detection, physics etc.

^this. It would even be nice if there were better collisions between separate objects and not just the ground; so, say, collisions between weapons and body armor, or arms and body armor, between legs, arms, etc. Not sure how this works, but as an engineering major in college, I use Autodesk Inventor, and there's some way that the program can recognize contact between two objects, so that when you try to rotate one object, it doesn't go through the other one. As I said, not sure if this is possible in ArmA 3, but IF it were, that would make any collisions much more realistic.

Edited January 19, 2012 by antoineflemming

[metalcraze 290]

What Cripsis says is that if BIS will make a hollywood-ish trailer that makes no sense and just looks cool it will totally attract people to a game that will be the exact opposite of it.

Swedish ad is awesome btw. It's how ArmA3 trailer should be.

It will attract the right kind of people which is important.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Cripsis - one need to create a teaser that catch people's attention and increase their interest in the game. Something different that is not like all the other shooter/wargame teasers... usually you don't remember average stuff but you do remember the worst and the best. BIS should imho go for the best even in marketing/advertizing!

Norsu why "low learning curve" and not "normal learning curve"? The "steep+slow learning curve" could be reserved for hardcore simulations. ;)

[Bee8190 10]

I honestly think the learning curve is fine, all it needs to make it smooth is proper documentation with links if necessary...

And the intro trailer for arma 3 was great, i imagine something along these lines but more from ingame and its abilities as game would work great

[norsu 180]

Norsu why "low learning curve" and not "normal learning curve"? The "steep+slow learning curve" could be reserved for hardcore simulations. ;)

Well with low learning curve I ment something like what was done in OFP campaign. The first couple missions are very simple and require the player to just follow their squad. Missions get harder and more functions are introduced as the players progresses. More functions like squad leading increase the difficulty steeply but at that point player should be fairly confident already. ARMA 2 campaign threw the player into role of a squad leader from the beginning and worst of all you couldn't even take losses.

[metalcraze 290]

How I wish to see something comparable to OFP campaign again.

40 varied missions and today BIS does like 5-6 that you can complete in a single evening or two and that's it.

I honestly think the learning curve is fine, all it needs to make it smooth is proper documentation with links if necessary...

Speaking of which - what I want to see is editor loading information on commands from BIKI. Would've been really awesome and comfortable.

[Nicholas 5]

That's what I loved about the campaign of Operation Flashpoint; it did not just throw the player into a confusing position. They were gradually introduced to each feature each of the game. Whereas with ArmA 1 and ArmA 2, the players were thrown into a tough position without learning anything. Especially placing the player as the leader. I personally hate being leader because there is so much to do.

[mir00 10]

I actually saw people in internet cafe, who were usually playing casual games and football sims, they were easily playing flashpoint. It didnt look that complicated back then, i guess

[ProfTournesol 956]

ArmA2 campaign wasn't complicated, it was badly designed and lacking of soul.

[feralcircus 2]

The manual contains everything you need to operate this simulation, the controls are very easy and logical. Please dont fix something that works fine.

If they simplify it will mean less features and end up like COD or some sh@t like that. I thought a joypad was a sex toy lol!?!?

[Pyronick 21]

If the interface gets an overhaul to something more simple while still maintaining the functionality, people are more easily persuaded to play the game. After which they'll either like it or not, depending on what type of gameplay they like.

The graphics are more than good enough to not bore people when they first see it.

[Craig_VG 20]

Swedish ad is awesome btw. It's how ArmA3 trailer should be.

It will attract the right kind of people which is important.

Agreed. It directly contrasts the blandness that has plagued almost all First Person Shooters to date. The blood on the screen, powerups, etc. People are getting sick of it. I've heard plenty of people on the internet saying they have just about had it with FPS. They are all the same, or so they think.

Such a trailer will bring in the right people. They may be inexperienced with this type of game, but they will be willing to give it a shot, which brings the accessibility into play. We don't want to scare these people off with clunky animations, but bring them in with complex, precise animations.

-Craig

[feralcircus 2]

If people aren't attracted to the game then it's simply just not for them.

I don't like knitting or stamp collecting so I just don't do it :-) And I certainly wouldn't request changing it to to suit me.

ARMA is an acquired taste and I think it's brilliant as it is and it works :-)

[dekster 1]

If people aren't attracted to the game then it's simply just not for them.

When someone asks me if I play computergames and I anser "Yes, I do, I play ArmA."

9/10 hasn't heard from it.

When I say it's the greatest game ever, they think I'm overacting.

When I say it's not perfect and sometimes buggy, but that the ambition is unmatched, they fear it's unplayable.

And the problem is also that this game has huge potential with people who don't play games nowadays, because they find today's games hyperkinetic and unreal.

Also I think the game has potential for "older" people, my dad (a former commando) thinks it's an awesome game. He doesn't play it, but he's given me advice many times at the start and sometimes say he'd like to play it to. (I once heard the average age of the OFP player was 26...)

[antoineflemming 14]

If people aren't attracted to the game then it's simply just not for them.

I don't like knitting or stamp collecting so I just don't do it :-) And I certainly wouldn't request changing it to to suit me.

ARMA is an acquired taste and I think it's brilliant as it is and it works :-)

"brilliant as it is" meaning 1) keep the core features and change/add improvements or 2) don't change anything at all/it's perfect as is? I'm asking for clarification of your statement.

Anyway, you are right, ArmA is an acquired taste. And the core features of ArmA are great. They are the things that makes ArmA, well, ArmA. No, ArmA 3 in particular should not be changed to suit standard FPS players. ArmA 3 shouldn't be watered down to make it more like COD, or BF, or Crysis, or whatever.

This next part isn't directed at you. It's in response to the thread in general, and those who feel like any change would water down or degrade ArmA.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Even though ArmA shouldn't be watered down or made to be more "arcade-ish", that doesn't mean that ArmA is perfect as is (NOT saying that this is what you meant by your statement). And just because COD, or BF, or CS, or Crysis, or THAT OTHER GAME, aren't like ArmA doesn't mean that those games are absolutely atrocious and imperfect either, as those games cater to a certain type of player just like ArmA caters to a certain type of player (oh, and being an ArmA fan doesn't make anyone superior to non-ArmA fans).

That said, yes, there are some things ArmA does better than standard FPSs and there are some things that current, standard FPSs, like COD and BF, do better than ArmA (yes, I said it). ArmA portrays reality much better than "arcade" FPSs when it comes to functionality and technical stuff (that's a whole lot of stuff, like aircraft, vehicle, and infantry simulation). It is a simulator, and therefore it simulates military stuff better than those games. ArmA's AI are actually a real challenge and threat for the player, unlike MW or BF. You can't unrealistically go rambo in ArmA like you can in BF or COD. Vehicles in ArmA actually require multiple players unlike in BF where the driver also mans the main gun in a tank. Not to mention ArmA is a sandbox, not a corridor shooter that restricts you to a certain area.

Yet, at the same time, there are some things that standard FPSs like BF and AA3 (America's Army 3) do better than ArmA, namely animations and graphics. No, I'm not saying that ArmA's graphics aren't good, because they are pretty good. Environment- and effects-wise, BF3 has ArmA beat. Destruction system comes to mind. When it comes to animations, sorry, BF3's, and AA3's, animations are much more realistic than ArmA's (yeah, the characters slide in BF3, but that's not an animation issue). The character models in BF3 (SP) and AA3, USMC and US Army respectively, are much more realistic/authentic than those in ArmA2/OA. AA3 simulates weapon jams. MOH has an animation for changing firemodes (the firemode selector lever is animated). Most current arcade shooters can realistically simulate an Eotech's or Aimpoint's parallax sights, which the RV engine at the moment can't do.

BF3's weapon audio sounds better than that in ArmA2. BF3's voiceovers sound better than ArmA2's (yeah, I know the system is different between both games). MW's AI behave much more realistically than in ArmA2. Not talking about AI difficulty and "level-of-dumbness", but movement-wise and gesture-wise. MW/MW2/MW3's and BF3's AI actually seek cover and attempt to suppress the player behind cover, where as ArmA2's AI tend to wander around (no, MW's and BF's AI aren't overly scripted to seek cover, because it's not the same for each playthrough). These games are much better and portraying CQC than ArmA is. Although CQc isn't really like quickly snapping floating hands, the speed at which close quarters combat happens is closer to the speed of arcade shooters than it is to the speed at which an ArmA player can do the same in ArmA.

The point of all this is not to say that arcade shooters are better than ArmA, or that ArmA is better than arcade shooters. The point is that both ArmA and the collective "arcade shooters" have room for improvement. Learning something from one genre or game, and including that feature, doesn't make the other genre or game more like the first. If ArmA3 were to have parallax sights, and 3d sights for all weapons, or a destruction system that matched or surpassed that of Frostbite 2, even the inclusion of those features wouldn't make ArmA 3 a lesser product or more like BF3. The inclusion of features such as these wouldn't detract from or negate the core features of the ArmA series. ArmA 3 includes hands animated on the steering wheel. That feature doesn't make the game more like basically any other racing game out there. It's an improvement.

The ultimate, take-home point is this: While many say the steep learning curve, or wealth of functionality and complex commands are the barriers keeping newcomers from playing or sticking with ArmA, I will argue something different - That the problem with ArmA is not the very thing that makes it ArmA, like the steep learning curve, or the actual work required to mod the game, or the exhaustive commands that require patience and learning, but the things that ArmA lacks, the very same things that other games excel in. Improve the animations, improve the effects, simulate the small stuff, like animated firemode selector levers, like doors that can open on vehicles, like realistic parallax sights, like more realistic looking and more proportionate character and gear models, better voices, greater emphasis on CQC (really not a small thing), better weapon sounds, continued focus on PhysX implementation, improvement of environmental textures (such as ground textures), an improved weight system for all objects and gear, maybe an improved custom face feature that let's the player choose the head model and rvmat as well, even an engaging, yet still realistic campaign story.

Either one or all of these "improvements" will not detract from the ArmA experience, but will instead enhance the experience and make the game more marketable. And the game will still be an ArmA game. And not only that, but it will make ArmA3 more special while making games like BF3 less special. I dare to say that you can have BF3's good animations (like movement animations, a matter of motion-capping and animation speed, really) AND still have ArmA's excellent fatigue system. I dare to say that ArmA can improve some effects, like smoke and fire, or other environmental effects, and still maintain the same view distances (they've proven it with the volumetric clouds). ArmA doesn't necessarily have to sacrifice anything to have needed improvements. And there's always room for improvement.

Edited January 22, 2012 by antoineflemming

[froggyluv 2136]

Not talking about AI difficulty and "level-of-dumbness", but movement-wise and gesture-wise. MW/MW2/MW3's and BF3's AI actually seek cover and attempt to suppress the player behind cover

Don't know bout MW but BF3's AI is horrible at CQB. Why? Because it isn't real -at all. What I mean is I literally stayed behind a doorway while my squad pretended to have a shootout with enemy AI literally 5 meters away down a hallway -no one was getting hit or hurt. I left my character there for 35 minutes while I talked on the phone -nobody was hit and the enemy AI didn't advance to kill me. Sorry, thats worse then bad AI -thats not AI at all but merely the illusion of a firefight.

As for the rest of your post I think you make many good points -but I really couldn't let that one go unchallenged. Swat 4 had some pretty good 'real' CQB AI and is a far better example then that garbage DICE tried to dish off.

[metalcraze 290]

No it doesn't seek any cover and doesn't try to suppress the player from behind it.

There's NO AI in MW/MW2/MW3/BF3.

You step into a trigger. A 3d model of a soldier spawns out of nowhere and receives a waypoint under the nearby box where it moves playing a pre-defined animation (like running and diving). Then it stays there just shooting at you.

Try reloading and every time bots in those games will do exactly the same things in the exactly same places. That includes friendly bots.

There's a reason why they don't have bots in MP - because they aren't even bots. A basic bot knows how to navigate around the area (like in CS). In BF3 they will never follow you if you will retreat even 10m back because those 3d models have no pathfinding at all.

BF3's weapon audio sounds better than that in ArmA2.

What? You call those crappy toy weapon soft POP-POPs better than real weapon sounds in ArmA2?

Edited January 22, 2012 by metalcraze

[katipo66 94]

Umm, bro you telling me the Arma2 AK74 is a real sound? Agree with you on the bots but arm2 weapons are sorely lacking

[metalcraze 290]

Well BIS did use sample libraries for some weapons, but eastern block weapons they very much recorded.

The argument is here that BF3 weapon sounds still sound like crap, even compared to ArmA.

All of them sound like toy weapons that fire plastic bullets with tons of reverb added for some reason.

Mind you I certainly prefer JSRS/ACE_SM edited weapon sounds over ArmA vanilla. But they too sound more powerful than soft BF3 pops.

[dekster 1]

Well BIS did use sample libraries for some weapons, but eastern block weapons they very much recorded.

GyEPfLnGWGo

I swear those Ak's never sound like this ingame.

[roberthammer 582]

Well Vanilla AkM/Ak47 sounds are ok ,but i agree that Ak74/Ak107 sound is just bad

[feralcircus 2]

"brilliant as it is" meaning 1) keep the core features and change/add improvements or 2) don't change anything at all/it's perfect as is? I'm asking for clarification of your statement.

Anyway, you are right, ArmA is an acquired taste. And the core features of ArmA are great. They are the things that makes ArmA, well, ArmA. No, ArmA 3 in particular should not be changed to suit standard FPS players. ArmA 3 shouldn't be watered down to make it more like COD, or BF, or Crysis, or whatever.

Yeah number 1 matey :-)

Your fingers must be killing after all that!

I may have portrayed myself as a possessive obsessed geek lol thanks for being so polite :-)

I'm all for making something look, sound & act as realistic as possible, I'm particularly looking forward to the ragdoll and hope It's done well & not exaggerated.

But I hope they keep the true core of the simulation. People are complaining that its too complex and hard to get into well so is Microsoft Flight Simulator but they wouldn't adapt that for kids with consoles.

I've played games like COD & MOH and realised they're just a posh version of Pacman lol

[antoineflemming 14]

No it doesn't seek any cover and doesn't try to suppress the player from behind it.

There's NO AI in MW/MW2/MW3/BF3.

You step into a trigger. A 3d model of a soldier spawns out of nowhere and receives a waypoint under the nearby box where it moves playing a pre-defined animation (like running and diving). Then it stays there just shooting at you.

Try reloading and every time bots in those games will do exactly the same things in the exactly same places. That includes friendly bots.

There's a reason why they don't have bots in MP - because they aren't even bots. A basic bot knows how to navigate around the area (like in CS). In BF3 they will never follow you if you will retreat even 10m back because those 3d models have no pathfinding at all.

What? You call those crappy toy weapon soft POP-POPs better than real weapon sounds in ArmA2?

Uh, what BF3 have you played? Soft Pop-Pops? Sounds more like ArmA to me. At least BF3's explosions and vehicles sound better, at least IMO. And, I was mainly talking about COD's AI. But only in regards to their behavior, such as shooting from behind cover, and that nature. AI in MW do run behind cars and buildings. And they actually run away from things like grenades. The "pre-defined" running animation is simply the animation for running. Every single movement isn't scripted. At least the bots in MW seemed a little more life-like. And at least they did other things than shoot, like, say, threw grenades at you. I'm not trying to say COD's perfect, but get your facts straight. And, by the way, Blops (which I hate) had MP bots.

@froggyluv Yeah, BF3's AI sucks. I was mainly talking about MW's bots.

@FeralCircus I definitely agree with you there.

Edited January 22, 2012 by antoineflemming