The trouble with getting people into Arma

[instagoat 133]

For the movement, it -is- clunky. There is no degrees of freedom, it´s just on-off animations. You either move, or you don´t, while in real life, you can very exactly define the scope, speed and pace of your movements.

For example, try to move around a corner slowly. You have to tap the move key, "twitching" into place, instead of doing it with one smooth tap of the key. The animation system of Arma so far has been archaic: it´s the same system from operation flashpoint, just with new and more diverse animations put into place. Some of these are decent, some are very good, and some are not: but the quality of the animations isn´t the problem.

The problem is the fact that the movement itself is clunky and robotic. In this regard, the floating camera used in almost all other shooters (apart from Trespasser, maybe) is more realistic than Arma, in the regard that it allows more fluid and intuitive movement.

I like the physicality of the body in arma, though, the fact that you can see your body as you move, and have it interact with your environment. That one´s a keeper, but something needs to be done about the ancient, on-off type movement/animation blending system.

One other point of discussion has been the complexity of the controls. I agree that a universal, contextual use key would be rad to have. Reducing movement keys would free up space for other functions. However, a lot of the functions mapped on the keyboard are hard or impossible to remove, without breaking the depth of the game. This brings us back to player training: everybody with half a brain can learn the controls, they just need to be taught how to use them. Finding everything out on your own can be frustrating, and should be something the game teaches you.

People play the game to have fun and enjoy themselves, not to spend half an our sifting trough keymap options or reading keymap cards, and then train themselves for two hours in the editor how to use the keys, and THEN have fun and enjoy themselves. I know in any other game than Arma, not being told how to play the game would be reason to bring it back. I know mass effect frustrated the hell out of me because it only told me things piecemeal, and in-story, instead of in a closed of training arena like games of old (Think System Shock 2, Half Life 1).

Arma 3 needs a player academy type of setting, where the basics of milsim gaming are laid out for the player, and where they can learn in a safe environment, with rewards to enhance the fun. (This can be as simple as a voiceover telling them how well they are performing, and doesn´t need to be lame stuff like unlocks and achievement lists.)

Once they are trained, they can confidently go into the missions, campaigns and multiplayer, and enjoy the game for what it really is, and not the frust-fest it´s been for noobs so far.

My two cents.

[katipo66 94]

Pretty sure a whole lot of people don't agree with you when it comes to ArmA's controls. Clunky isn't hard to understand. Let's put it this way: there are fluid controls and there are clunky controls. Fluid, realistic human movement vs. animations that don't seamlessly transition, animations that are at times robotic. For one, the player should be able to break certain movements (i.e., if I'm moving to a sprint from crouch and I stop, I should not run a couple feet, then stop.). In other words, the player should not have to wait for every animation to finish before he/she can perform another movement. The running with a sidearm or without a weapon is another issue. Clearly, that is hand-animated. Clearly, it is not realistic human movement. Also, realistically, the human body does not snap to another position. It transitions. Movement of arms and legs should behave as though they have joints (balls in sockets) that rotate. In ArmA, the limbs (especially the arms and neck, not really a limb though) fold to a certain position. The shoulders should pivot, the elbows and knees bend. The neck should turn, not fold around when turning the head. Examples like this are what people refer to when they label ArmA's animations clunky and unrealistic, and they are right. Only a handful of ArmA animations are good.

Fair enough, i fully agree on the transitions, and i hate the running with side arm and especially no weapon with a passion, i thought people were referring to the actual movement when running and stuff with head bob etc... i.e. my character is a model and not floating camera.

[kylania 567]

For example, try to move around a corner slowly. You have to tap the move key, "twitching" into place, instead of doing it with one smooth tap of the key.

What? :confused:

7Mkq-X-YCJY

You can very smoothly move around corners in ArmA2. Seems to me you're not walking, you're trying to run around a corner, which yes, won't work. But you can certainly WALK around a corner, gun raised ready to fire, without any jerkiness.

Edited October 4, 2011 by kylania

[instagoat 133]

What? :confused:

You can very smoothly move around corners in ArmA2. Seems to me you're not walking, you're trying to run around a corner, which yes, won't work. But you can certainly WALK around a corner, gun raised ready to fire, without any jerkiness.

Try slowly peeking around a corner. I´d upload a video, but my net is incredibly sucky, so I have to make due with words :/

I agree, deliberately walking around corners works fairly okay, even though you can still get stuck in doorways unless your weapon is lowered. What I mean is peeking around a corner just enough to, for example, offer a narrow field of fire trough a doorway into a street. I guess it has to do with the slow responsiveness of the keystrokes (ie, the fact that you hit a key, and the character only moves shortly afterwards... at least, that problem is present on my rig.)

[Tonci87 163]

Guys if you want to play BF then please do it, but don't ask for Arma to become a new BF2!

Apart from that, yes animations like running unarmed or with sidearm need to be changed, they are horrible.

I like to carefully pick my gear if the mission maker gives me the possibility. If you want missions with predefined classes then go and make them.

[Smurf 12]

This isn't about Arma becoming BF\COD, is about NOT being a refrigerator moving around!

I fear corridors, stairwells and edges in Arma, just because I don´t know really were I am while moving, the character feels bigger and squared while moving in confined spaces or near objects.

GRAW, R6RS, RO2; all have smooth movements and should be taken as example. Or go for something else, new.

[HyperU2 11]

ARMA is a chess game in a checkers industry.

[melmil 10]

ARMA is a chess game in a checkers industry.

That is incredibly well phrased.

I feel like one of the biggest parts of the learning curve is figuring out how to think while playing the game. I'm not saying I'm any better at this, but you need to develop an eye for the safety of yourself and of your comrades while playing. I find that most people I introduce the game to are thrust into combat, and don't quite know how to react. They don't really understand that bullets hurt.

I have 1 friend I play ARMA II with. We play Warfare missions over and over. That has lasted us an entire year. I absolutely love the replayability ARMA II has, and now I understand quite how to achieve that replayability.

[antoineflemming 14]

Look at the movement at the start of that video. How the player struggles to go through the door at the back. How is this realistic and smooth? Look at how they get stuck on the wall before they go up the stairs. Look at how they twitch up the stairs.

@Katipo66: The head bob isn't an issue. The running is. It's not that realistic. In some cases it even seems slowed down. NOT for ArmA2 to be like BF3, but compare the BF3 sprinting to ArmA sprinting. You'll see what I'm talking about.

Dzd84PkgqGM

2zw8SmsovJc&hd=1

01:49 to 01:56, 2:49 to 2:55

I'm talking about the 3rd person animation, not the floating hands.

Also notice the low crawl from 5:52 to 6:32

Edited October 5, 2011 by antoineflemming

[oktane 0]

Couple threads similar to this with discussion and ideas:

http://forums.bistudio.com/printthread.php?t=120879&pp=100

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?p=1625042#post1625042

I reposted some bits later on in this thread so you don't have to dig in there, some of those have 200 replies!

Cheers

Edited October 7, 2011 by oktane

[Cripsis 10]

GRAW, R6RS, RO2; all have smooth movements and should be taken as example.

Agreed. I think even the most hardcore ARMA fans would welcome fluid natural-feeling movements like those in R6RS. I absolutely love the realism of ARMA but can't deny that moving indoors feels awkward and clumsy.

[Engioc 10]

I'd certainly agree with that. I love ArmA and I'd hate to see it turned in to a BF3 or COD type game but its hard to deny that moving around indoors feels clumsy.

I cant remember which of the Takistan campaigns it was (BAF I think) where you have to go in to a mosque to free some prisoners, I tried climbing some of the towers around the outside edge to get a better shot at the AI soldiers on higher levels of the mosque but its incredibly hard to get in to a decent position to fire on anyone, crouched down he either ends up falling off, or is so low can no longer see. Weapon getting stuck as you try to move around an find a better position, it just didn't work well at all.

[Pummel 10]

Not only are the controls clunky, but even *looking* is laggy. I can be running at 60fps but turning quickly seems to have a slight delay on it. And it's worse online when the server fps seems to dictate how well the game will run on my PC, even though my PC is very powerful. The mouse control is also a bit odd. It seems to force you to use mouse acceleration or something. Whatever it is, it feels strange, and it's different to ALL other FPS's. Once you get used to it, it's ok. But for the first week or so of playing, I felt like I was constantly battling with the mouse to make it do what I wanted, and I was never satisfied with how it feels.

Besides the clunkyness, it is amazing how even quite experienced gamers cannot understand the link between size and graphics quality. They look at screenshots of Arma and say, "It doesn't look that good, Crysis is better." What they fail to understand is that Crysis can look better because the maps are smaller, your computer has to process far less, and load less in to it's memory and has few AI's running around etc. I can explain this to one of my friends, but I can't explain it to an entire generation of gamers. I don't know what the solution to this is.

I think Arma 3 has a better chance though, because the graphics are really good. I think Arma 2 would have been far more popular if the release was Operation Arrowhead instead of the original. I find that Chernarus is a bit ugly, and it's also quite stuttery. The OA areas however I find are gorgeous to look at and also run nice and smooth.

I think Arma 3 has a good chance of having more mass appeal. They just need to do things right this time. Especially making a good single player campaign, or just don't have one at all. Release another game with another horrible campaign like Harvest Red and it's just not going to be good news.

Edited October 5, 2011 by Pummel

[katipo66 94]

I find that Chernarus is a bit ugly, and it's also quite stuttery.

I personally think Chernarus is one of the greatest gaming maps ever!

[nodunit 397]

I'd certainly agree with that. I love ArmA and I'd hate to see it turned in to a BF3 or COD type game but its hard to deny that moving around indoors feels clumsy.

No that was OA default campaign towards the end, I remember because my guns geometry got stuck so many times and the ladder climbing down got me killed. The funny thing is when it comes to Arma and crysis, the CE engine is actually less optimized. Taking visuals alone, if you compare the texture sizes and numbers of objects between the two games more often than not Crysis will have less, I think the nano suit took two maybe three most whereas soldiers in OA take more than that. Another great pro and I'm going to experiment with this sometime, is that they reduced normal maps by half the size, so if you had a 1024x512 diffuse the NM would be 512x256.

The theory was (And I don't know if it applies the same here) that normal maps by default require twice the processing power at half size, same size required x4 and in OA all NM's are the same size as are specular. It may not hurt to experiment, depending on what it is you may not notice much of a difference. That said Crysis also had some other tricks you would only see with the editor, an invisible wall that would stop objects from behind rendering 'behind' it, not quite the same culling from off screen but where even if you looked at it X factors would be modified. Likewise those textures you see off in the distance such as the mountain in stage 1 are actually 512 or 256, if you get close they become waaay blurry..but I digress, this is pushing from the original topic, regardless the game definatly needs more video customization.

Edited October 5, 2011 by NodUnit

[HyperU2 11]

Agreed. I think even the most hardcore ARMA fans would welcome fluid natural-feeling movements like those in R6RS. I absolutely love the realism of ARMA but can't deny that moving indoors feels awkward and clumsy.

I think the clumsiness is the downfall of ARMA PVP, those stupid moments that get you killed aren't so bad against AI.

Can't see how anyone would liken playing against AI as a "target range" though, the second any of their shots comes near me my character starts shaking like an epileptic. That lack of predictability and disconnection with weapon handling is one of my biggest grievances. I've had numerous times where I just duck down and not take shots because it wasn't worth wasting ammo. Of course there is also the fact that when you do manage to hit them square in the chest they're not the slightest bit inconvenienced by that until the 3rd or 4th time. lol

Had to vent because I just got chewed up.

Edited October 5, 2011 by HyperU2

[rye1 21]

Yeah it's very clumbsy. It needs to be more fluid, maybe I just need a new PC, 2000000fps. :D

[HyperU2 11]

Maybe if there was a way to crossfire processors, not just GPU.

[maddogx 13]

Yeah it's very clumbsy. It needs to be more fluid, maybe I just need a new PC, 2000000fps. :D

A good framerate helps in general, but it doesn't solve all the problems with the animation system:

1. Some actions immobilize you (weapon switching, grenade throwing), which reduces the feeling of being "in control". (= clunkiness)

Solution: allow all common actions to be performed on the move.

2. Switching between stances with certain items in hand (for example binoculars) causes you to switch back and forth between weapons, again causing unnecessary immobilization, not to mention destroying immersion. (= extra clunkiness)

Solution: This is basically a bug that needs fixing. No action should force weapons to be switched back and forth.

3. When prone, moving close to certain objects forces the player to stand up, yet again destroying immersion due to lack of control.

Solution: Once again, simply a bug. When a prone player crawls to close to an object, block his path if necessary, but never ever force a stance change.

4. The rigid animations make movements close to other objects feel clunky and unrealistic.

Solution: Inverse kinematics? Improved collision geometry? Not sure.

If the new animation system solves these problems, it will be perfect, IMO.

[antoineflemming 14]

Not only are the controls clunky, but even *looking* is laggy. I can be running at 60fps but turning quickly seems to have a slight delay on it. And it's worse online when the server fps seems to dictate how well the game will run on my PC, even though my PC is very powerful. The mouse control is also a bit odd. It seems to force you to use mouse acceleration or something. Whatever it is, it feels strange, and it's different to ALL other FPS's. Once you get used to it, it's ok. But for the first week or so of playing, I felt like I was constantly battling with the mouse to make it do what I wanted, and I was never satisfied with how it feels.

Besides the clunkyness, it is amazing how even quite experienced gamers cannot understand the link between size and graphics quality. They look at screenshots of Arma and say, "It doesn't look that good, Crysis is better." What they fail to understand is that Crysis can look better because the maps are smaller, your computer has to process far less, and load less in to it's memory and has few AI's running around etc. I can explain this to one of my friends, but I can't explain it to an entire generation of gamers. I don't know what the solution to this is.

I think Arma 3 has a better chance though, because the graphics are really good. I think Arma 2 would have been far more popular if the release was Operation Arrowhead instead of the original. I find that Chernarus is a bit ugly, and it's also quite stuttery. The OA areas however I find are gorgeous to look at and also run nice and smooth.

I think Arma 3 has a good chance of having more mass appeal. They just need to do things right this time. Especially making a good single player campaign, or just don't have one at all. Release another game with another horrible campaign like Harvest Red and it's just not going to be good news.

I'd like Chernarus more if it the buildings were different and the ugly orange trees were green. I'd like both Chernarus and Utes if the grass was greener and darker, not this faded green.

---------- Post added at 07:34 ---------- Previous post was at 07:27 ----------

A good framerate helps in general, but it doesn't solve all the problems with the animation system:

1. Some actions immobilize you (weapon switching, grenade throwing), which reduces the feeling of being "in control". (= clunkiness)

Solution: allow all common actions to be performed on the move.

2. Switching between stances with certain items in hand (for example binoculars) causes you to switch back and forth between weapons, again causing unnecessary immobilization, not to mention destroying immersion. (= extra clunkiness)

Solution: This is basically a bug that needs fixing. No action should force weapons to be switched back and forth.

3. When prone, moving close to certain objects forces the player to stand up, yet again destroying immersion due to lack of control.

Solution: Once again, simply a bug. When a prone player crawls to close to an object, block his path if necessary, but never ever force a stance change.

4. The rigid animations make movements close to other objects feel clunky and unrealistic.

Solution: Inverse kinematics? Improved collision geometry? Not sure.

If the new animation system solves these problems, it will be perfect, IMO.

A new animation system is really the only solution. All motion-capture, no hand animations. And a NEW system, not an upgrade for the old system or a new version of it. Hopefully revamped means new when it domes to the animations. Because that's one thing certain standard FPSs have over Arms.

[dmarkwick 261]

I've had numerous times where I just duck down and not take shots because it wasn't worth wasting ammo.

As it's difficult to really get players to act as though their lives really were in mortal danger, I think a little simulated fear is a good thing :) I'm pretty sure that a lot of people make moves in games that do not tally with their real-life concerns. It's generally considered that ArmA must be as realistic as possible, and yet it's also expected to act realistically when the player does not.

[Cripsis 10]

That's why I like to set-up the enemy AI to be extremely accurate, getting caught dawdling out in the open is certain death, when I'm hiding behind cover it gives the enemy AI opportunity to maneuver. I've seen enough combat footage to know that it's often very difficult for troops to establish exactly where enemy fire is coming from without exposing themselves to danger, and the only way to make ARMA believable is to make the AI realisticaly lethal.

[djfluffwug 10]

Just adding to MadDogX's list of things that make it feel clunky in CQC:

Some falls temporarily immobilise you. It feels clunky and makes your feel a lack of control.

Either have some kind of falling animation where the player falls to the ground and then gets back up or don't immobilise the player at all.

Colliding easily with buildings. This makes it a real hassle trying to move through buildings.

Since we can't completely control the soldiers stance in the game and modify the stance so we can fluidly move through a building,

it should be assumed that the soldier will take on that responsibility. This can be mimicked in 2 ways.

Easy way: Guns and other items don't collide.

Harder way: The soldier automatically modifies the position of weapons if they are colliding. For example, if a gun is colliding with a wall,

the soldier in the game will move his arms away from the wall or raise the gun so it is not colliding with the wall.

(I understand this would be a huge technical job to code)

Those are just some of my ideas. Wouldn't suit everyone.

Anyways, that is just a bit from me.

[metalcraze 290]

As it's difficult to really get players to act as though their lives really were in mortal danger, I think a little simulated fear is a good thing :) I'm pretty sure that a lot of people make moves in games that do not tally with their real-life concerns. It's generally considered that ArmA must be as realistic as possible, and yet it's also expected to act realistically when the player does not.

When I've played no-respawn MP missions with dudes who just got into OFP/ArmA everyone acted like the life was at stake.

There's no worse punishment than sitting for a hour or two waiting until the mission ends.

And yep - all of us survived for 3 hours, fighting against greater enemy numbers and BMPs (all while being nothing but an infantry squad). Well we died in the end when we bunched up too much in a forest and a single grenade took half of the squad out - then enemy infantry finished the job.

So it's quite possible to have what you describe. Even with new players.

[dmarkwick 261]

When I've played no-respawn MP missions with dudes who just got into OFP/ArmA everyone acted like the life was at stake.

There's no worse punishment than sitting for a hour or two waiting until the mission ends.

And yep - all of us survived for 3 hours, fighting against greater enemy numbers and BMPs (all while being nothing but an infantry squad). Well we died in the end when we bunched up too much in a forest and a single grenade took half of the squad out - then enemy infantry finished the job.

So it's quite possible to have what you describe. Even with new players.

Best gaming I ever had has always been on one-life-only games :)

I went to my sister's not long back and got her (and my) kids to play CoD, but with one life each only. Holy crap you should have seen the difference in gameplay :D