The trouble with getting people into Arma

[krazikilla 5]

So it seems that many people has to play ArmA games with strangers because their 10 gaming friends from the neighbourhood do not want to play arma after trying it.

Furthermore, I have even bought a copy of ArmA2 for several of my friends to try to convince them, but they do not want to play.

In my case i believe it is the lack of user-friendliness of the game.

None of my friends want to get a PhD in Arma management to be able to play sometimes.

The inability to download mods and updates automatically (if you press "yes, download the new version") as you are joining a server.

There is no doubt that Arma games are the best ever and everything should remain as it is, otherwise it would not be ArmA, but BIS should think about making the management of the game easy for those not skilled or those who do not have the time to read forums for hours daily. We do not want COD kiddies playing, just being able to play with our friends,. WHo knows, maybe among them we have another hidden sickboy or sickgirl!

It is true that many skilled people have kindly made tools to update the game, the mods, etc, and we really appreciate this, however the use of these tools is still too complicated.

If BIS does something about it i trully believe all the friends of each one of their customers and fans would buy ArmA3. BIS are good guys, but ArmA is also a business and has to feed staff.

And something else. Many of us, who do not have the editing skills despite reading hours of forums everyday would pay for and Advanced editing DVD course via video tutorials, manuals, etc. Since Arma is mainly the editor, and for many a hobbie (as stated above by someone) this should be more profitable than the game itself.

Kind regards and thanks.

Borz

this!

[smookie 11]

that^

[wipman 1]

Hi, i was only able to hook two fellas to this drug named OFP; they'd rehab 'emselves with the ArmA, that was so bad and gave so few in comparison with the OFP... that they'd loosed interest with the time, basically the same that happens with the metadone.

Hook new addicts is very hard because this is not a simulator but neither is an arcade, so it disappoints boot tipe of consumer; is easyer to hook a dude/chick with a pure product, a pure arcade or pure simulator instead a mix, with this kind of mixed product... you'll get casual users, with a pure product... you'll get addicts, the product will be their new religion because it's what they wanted, is pure so is not a mix of mass media concepts with a bit of Hollywood, a bit of church and alot of vaseline.

Give 'em a pure thing and you'll be their Messiah and they'll be awaiting for each new patch with joy and will get it with hype and cheers as the Moses tables.

The purity rules...! "ask to the austrians that work in germany..." >>;-) . Let's C ya

[Baff1 0]

For myself the attraction is the gameplay.

Remove that and I would never even launch the software.

I have plenty of sim titles that while they fire my intellect do not inspire me to launch them. They are sort of like owning a book about Spitfires or something. I like to own it but I will almost never have the inclination to open it, let alone read it over just looking at the pictures.

What the toybox element of this game adds to me is longevity. Something to do when I have finished the game.

In order to get my friends to play with me I need games that have a decent pace.

If the bulk of my time in any game is spent running 5 miles over mountains or or with one person driving for 5 miles while my mates are bored as monkeys in the back....

I've lost their intrest 100% by the time there is anything for them to participate in.

I don't feel that any realism has to be lost in order to get good gameplay.

If I was to give examples like H&D2 or Ghost Recon, I feel that both of these titles were realism games/simulations, but both were excellent games with strong gameplay

Micromanagement is another problem for gameplay in multiplayer. If one person is the AI leader, that person is spending all their time manipulating the AI and simply can't keep up with the actions/intentions of the human players.

They just end up bored and waiting, and once again mass boredom = the end of the game session.

So it's not just realism that I require but also immersion.

There needs to be plenty of action that requires my continuous input or my mind drifts.

ArmA provides all the tools and mechanics required for a decently crafted game.

But for the most part, it's a single player experience for serious army nuts.

[antoineflemming 14]

+1 Animation is also a large part of immersion. Players and AI physically (in-game, you know what I mean) cannot keep up with actions/intentions of human players. If the game doesn't feel right to a newcomer, as in slow movement, clunky movement, than they are also not willing to continue playing the game, even if they take hold of the learning curve required to play ArmA.

If animation and movement-wise, the game was as quick and fluid as in real life, or even in any of the major FPSs (MW1/2/3, BF, MOH, GR, Crysis, etc), and retained everything else, I guarantee you more people would play ArmA2. No, quick, fluid movement doesn't mean you will have rambos running everywhere like in COD. What it'll mean is that the reaction time of the player character will now more closely match the reaction time of the player. If he/she sees something and needs to react quickly, for example quickly finding cover, then that will translate in-game.

Of course this will fix half of the CQB problems; the other half of the problems needs to be fixed with better AI pathfinding and scripting. Better AI in general would be good for ArmA. I'm not sure, but does the variable skill in the mission editor factor in AI reaction time? Improved reaction time by the AI, that makes them seem less AI, and more lifelike would enhance immersion, and that immersion (including fluid anims) will bring in more players. Because, ArmA's drawn the milsim fans who love all the functionality and tools and stuff.

To draw in newcomers, BIS has got to promote immersion and authenticity (touted excessively by MOH2010). BIS has the authenticity down with Limnos and how authentic it is to the real island. Once the immersion is there, ArmA will outshine any other shooter, really, and more players will come to the game.

---------- Post added at 11:15 ---------- Previous post was at 11:12 ----------

Gameplay technicalities aside, what I am most afraid of running nose first into the dirt is the story pretense. I´ve already made a thread saying how illogical the equipment seems...

But seeing the ending of PMC (the bad-bad one),

I am inclined to think that it was one of the reasons. However, in the real world, this has happened, and led to the conclusion of WMD programs.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/nuke/

and also the other way round:

http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-show/slide-show-1-pak-sold-nuke-technology-to-china-iran-n-korea/20110919.htm

There have never been -any- reactions such as those depicted in PMC, and seeing as China is a -major- world player, nobody would dare making military fuss along their borders just because some recently toppled fringe government got told how to spin a centrifuge the right way around.

I hope the pretense for the conflict depicted in Arma 3 will be more realistic, and the PMC ending turn out to be a minor happening, or maybe a small starting point, for a more serious crisis. Especially in relations to chinas proven tactics of economic warfare, as well as the shanghai coop organizations (maybe the origin organization of the CRZ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Cooperation_Organisation) start to bundle economic together with military activities as a counterpoint to Nato.

I know I am overthinking this a bit, but I´d love for the game to have a realistic background. Especially with the sillyness abound in the other shooters around, such as MW3

SCO is a mutual intergovernmental security organization. The economic aspect is the thing that's growing among them, so very likely it could be a counter to NATO

[DarkOddity 10]

I noticed a problem with my friends remaining interested in ArmA as well. Hell, I have the same problem with it at times myself. Why? Because it can be hard to get into when you want instant action.

I have a group of friends who enjoy shooters, and they are all big fans of the realism that ArmA brings to the table. However, what they aren't fond of is that when they want action they don't go to ArmA, because it's slower paced as you prepare to enter combat. That, or there isn't enough combat.

What I personally would like to see is the addition of support for smaller maps and game mode editing. Like sessions and mini-sessions. (Think of how Counter-Strike worked).

Give the modding community to do this and they can add this content into the game.

[wipman 1]

Hi, instead a game mode i'll call it Mission; a mission that be pure front line, to Hold Advance & Hold, up to a point, PvP or another that be Players vs AI. But that wouldn't be enough to hook most of the possible players because what i'd said, the ArmAs are not arcades but neither simulators, are more sim but with some touches of arcade that make the gameplay poor or just bad; IMO would be better if it were a true sim instead a weird mix (on the game's mechanics) between arcade and sim. Let's C ya

[oktyabr 12]

Ha! I'm my "clan"'s biggest Arma fan boy, pimping the game with embedded videos of gameplay and Steam sales at least a couple of times a year. Once upon a time OFP was popular in our group but somehow when the road forked most of my mates went another way... Most of the guys I game with have been following the BF series religiously. The other night, in a BF3 session in Mumble, one of them told me he bought the ArmaX package (on sale in Steam) just so he could play it first hand and then tell me how bad a game it is.

It's NOT a bad game at all and I really enjoy the "toybox" aspects of it a great deal, but I understand the reasons people like him don't/won't like it. Mostly it's the steep learning curve combined with the difficulty in approaching it from a multiplayer aspect, especially since almost every other shooter out there exclusively rely on PvP to keep multiplayer exciting. PvP in Arma could be (should be?) much more emphasized to help draw in some of the players that would buy it if it was there. MUCH improved AI and increased emphasis on coop (how come the best coop servers out there are mods and not official BIS product?) would be good too. MUCH more polish on the command menus and training tutorials (+1 for remembering America's Army training) would be a HUGE help.

Eye candy? Sure, you can always make a game prettier or at least work on the animations, but sales of things like Minecraft help reinforce the fact that GREAT graphics do not always equal a GREAT game.

Sound improvements would be awesome as well. Some of the bugs that make placing a vehicle's distance (by listening to it) should be thoroughly squashed before Arma3 is released. One of the best things in BF3 is the "realism" of the weapon sounds... they even change based on whether the weapon is fired indoors or out, CQB or at range. Once you get used to hearing them like that, playing anything that hasn't paid as much attention to immersive sound FX just feels a bit... outdated.

Mod launching. Yes, I know, it's not difficult to add @somemod to a command string, once you understand how it all works, but let's face it... Apps like Sixupdater exist because there is room for improvement in how the game syncs player mods with what's being used on a server (i.e. not at all).

[katipo66 94]

They want to introduce something like Advancing Power by dragon zen... That mission alone cleans up all other shooters, it's highly addictive... And it uses all of Armas features such as large spaces, vehicles etc perfectly.

It has the feel of a battlefield type gamely but with more depth.

This type of mission on some smaller focused maps and they would have a winner imo. (in terms of this thread title)

And also the way in which you can set this mission up is something that is missing from arma, sure there is the editor, but it's missing some major features in my opinion like respawn for AI and player for starters? The way you can easily setup battles between different factions is a must have feature, because that's what arma excels at, large scale warfare.

but apart from placing lots of groups on the editor and giving move waypoints towards each other there's no easy way to set up large scale battles, ACM is close but it's just meaningless spawning around a player, if you could decide your factions, what vehicles they use, direction of battle or with as many or as little options as I want to use then this game would be damn near perfect for me...

[MD500Enthusiast 10]

Going with the original poster's definitions, I really think ArmA needs to be more of a game. If ArmA 3 provides gamers with some more highspeed action the likes of the Battlefield series, I think ArmA 3 really has the chance to not only attract a ton of new fans but crush Battlefield 3.

I tried ArmA and didn't like it for the reasons outlined at length in this thread. I was hoping for a bigger and more realistic version of Battlefield but instead I got clunky controls (you can't jump, you have to hit a button to climb a ladder, etc., etc.).

DICE/EA has decided to sellout in favor of attracting the teeniebopper Call of Duty fanbase. BF3 will have no commander mode, despite complaints for a host of BF2 fans and DICE/EA requires the use of "Battelog" (a Facebook-meets-train-wreck web browser-based server browser). Their are countless other problems with BF3 has that dedicated Battlefield fans are complaining about.

Battlefield 3 is looking so bad to me that I might just close down my clan and wait for ArmA 3. :(

I strongly suggest that Bohemia Interactive takes a good hard look at Battlefield 2's features and gameplay and the positive things that are coming out of DICE's Frostbite engine and in creating ArmA 3present it as an awesome FPS game with the toybox hidden but completely accessible for those that want to use it.

why not just goto bf3 forum and ask dice to make an open world map and leave our precious game alone?

---------- Post added at 01:00 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:52 AM ----------

No, clunky controls do not equal realism. What is realistic is something like Track IR (i.e., you turn your head and your character's head turns instead of requiring more keys, mouse, etc., to produce the same effect). Making something complicated or clunky does not create a more realistic feeling.

In fact, it does quite the opposite.

In real life, if I want to climb a ladder quickly I can run at it, jump and grab onto a rung. In ArmA you can't jump and you can't fluidly grab onto a rung...and that's only one small criticism among others.

I'm trying to help here by offering my view from someone that is attracted to ArmA but was disappointed. Unfortunately, I sense that I'm just going to be hit with comments such as yours that are intended to insult my intelligence instead of expand on the dialog of how ArmA can increase it's player base. How sad.

oh really? how fast do you think you can personally run and jump around with a gun slinging from your shoulder with about 80 pounds of gear on your back and a big ass helmet and straps all over your body and still be able to shoot accurately at a moment's notice? give me a break. go on youtube and look at war footage from middle east and see how clunky our soldier's movements are compared to bf3 when they breach and enter houses or hunkered down in a firefight. you won't see anyone jumping around, or any of that hollywood shit you're used to seeing on tv or in the theater and comparing it with real life.

---------- Post added at 01:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:00 AM ----------

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.). .

try carrying a 60 pounds bag on your back, crouch then sprint and stop all of a sudden. i bet you'll face plant on the pavement and all thanks to what's called momentum.

[Flash Thunder 10]

Even with all the above rectified.

Arma the franchise would still need some massive PR to semi rid the bad reception the game has regarding it being buggy and poor performing game.

Other factors to the issue

Game requires a damn beast of a rig most my friends can't even play a Call of Duty game on PC let alone Arma 2 that requires at least 1gb vram to run "optimally".

Anything with the word Simulation will be associated with a negative taste with regular gamers it essentially means work instead of game.

There really isn't much of a jump in and jump out experience in Arma games theres no real quick way to just play a fun hectic skirmish or FTE type missions from that other series FPDR that gives the player a sense of accomplishment and the pleasure of using some awesome modern weapons to blow shit up and kill baddies. (yes there are some but its not made readily available to the average player that doesn't come onto forums or sites like Armaholic)

BIS seems oriented in maintaining their simulation aspect instead of craving more out of the already established military simulation niche.

Ivan has commented on the issues of accessibility but we will just have to wait and see what BIS is planning for Arma 3.

My generation of lads are all for instant gratification.

[HyperU2 11]

So it just has to become like every other game to be popular. Yawn.

[Flash Thunder 10]

So it just has to become like every other game to be popular. Yawn.

Apparently but luckily for you BIS mentallity is to not cater to CodBlopers or BFoons. (lol at the names) :)

So they will maintain their current sales track but never exceed them.

[MD500Enthusiast 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.

you can get quick mouse movements if you get rid of mouse smoothing, just make sure to decrease your sensitivity in x/y axis after. mouse smoothing sort of simulates real life movement if you were to turn from side to side aimimg a rifle, you can't turn 180 degrees in a blink of an eye, the human body just doesn't work like that.

[nodunit 397]

Soldiers must train and learn how to navigate with their equipment on, as such the player should not be exempt..you say you can make all of these motions so fluidly and perfectly, bulk yourself up and put on a heavy helmet then try it it, be it moving too much, too encumbered or throwing off your senses somehow..you'll find it's hardly the same. I can speak from a little bit of experience because I have a kevlar helmet, combat boots, several uniforms, but pack and one of the backpacks (and this accounts for maybe 1/3 to a half of the stuff they carry) I cannot remember the name of..with that sucker full the last thing you think about when you see an obstacle is jumping over it.

The idea that you can throw yourself at a ladder and climb it is silly, when you're loaded down that is the last thing you want to do unless you're looking for injury, likewise climbing the ladder becomes a feat all it's own when that heavy stuff is pulling you down so you practicly have to fight yourself to climb up with each step. Oh and forget the idea of gracefully vaulting over things, as MD500Enthusiast the momentum from the equipment will..and it WILL throw you down to the floor.

Don't be fooled by these games like call of duty or battlefield, thinking that they are realistic gameplay of a soldier, they most certainly are not.

That said there should be a difference in motion between civilian and military units, hopefully the rumors of weight being introduced into A3 will be true and that will do something about this.

Edited November 28, 2011 by NodUnit

[MD500Enthusiast 10]

For myself the attraction is the gameplay.

Remove that and I would never even launch the software.

I have plenty of sim titles that while they fire my intellect do not inspire me to launch them. They are sort of like owning a book about Spitfires or something. I like to own it but I will almost never have the inclination to open it, let alone read it over just looking at the pictures.

What the toybox element of this game adds to me is longevity. Something to do when I have finished the game.

In order to get my friends to play with me I need games that have a decent pace.

If the bulk of my time in any game is spent running 5 miles over mountains or or with one person driving for 5 miles while my mates are bored as monkeys in the back....

I've lost their intrest 100% by the time there is anything for them to participate in.

I don't feel that any realism has to be lost in order to get good gameplay.

If I was to give examples like H&D2 or Ghost Recon, I feel that both of these titles were realism games/simulations, but both were excellent games with strong gameplay

Micromanagement is another problem for gameplay in multiplayer. If one person is the AI leader, that person is spending all their time manipulating the AI and simply can't keep up with the actions/intentions of the human players.

They just end up bored and waiting, and once again mass boredom = the end of the game session.

So it's not just realism that I require but also immersion.

There needs to be plenty of action that requires my continuous input or my mind drifts.

ArmA provides all the tools and mechanics required for a decently crafted game.

But for the most part, it's a single player experience for serious army nuts.

not to be rude but kind of sounds like you and your friends have ADD? what would it hurt to spend spending a couple of mins looking at the map/terrain and planning your attack instead of running in guns ablaze?

[oktyabr 12]

Some of you guys are simplifying the movement argument into black and white, just for arguments sake?

Fact: It IS a lot of gear to carry, fully outfitted for a combat patrol, etc. However, as many have pointed out, that extra weight is a burden that can get you injured or killed... Which is why, if you are expecting a patrol to end in a firefight within the first few hours out (most missions in Arma), and you are on foot, you carry as little as absolutely necessary. Train with 80lbs of gear, sure. Trot into a village with the intent of fighting for your life? Would you carry everything?

Fact: Even weighted down with lots of gear, yes, you move with caution when you can (never run when you can walk, never walk when you can stand, never stand when you can sit, never sit when you can lie down... old mountain climbers adage) but adrenaline comes in to play when you are being shot at and you'd be surprised how fast you can move, even weighted down... when your life depends on it.

Fact: No, I don't want Arma3 to be loaded down with the latest wizzbang bunny hopping features. But not being able to easily negotiate a curb or other low obstacle (knee height or below) is silly too. And while I'm at it a realism shooter called "True Combat" figured out you should probably holster/sling your weapon before climbing a ladder and that it doesn't just magically reappear in your hand the second you get off it either... they did that several years ago.

[nodunit 397]

Part in part that is where a weight system would come in since you would be able to define what you carry and thus how much it would weigh you down so that if you were to go into a town like you said, you wouldn't carry everything and thus be as bloated.

All for naught though if it wouldn't effect the characters performance.

Edited November 28, 2011 by NodUnit

[antoineflemming 14]

Soldiers must train and learn how to navigate with their equipment on, as such the player should not be exempt..you say you can make all of these motions so fluidly and perfectly, bulk yourself up and put on a heavy helmet then try it it, be it moving too much, too encumbered or throwing off your senses somehow..you'll find it's hardly the same. I can speak from a little bit of experience because I have a kevlar helmet, combat boots, several uniforms, but pack and one of the backpacks (and this accounts for maybe 1/3 to a half of the stuff they carry) I cannot remember the name of..with that sucker full the last thing you think about when you see an obstacle is jumping over it.

The idea that you can throw yourself at a ladder and climb it is silly, when you're loaded down that is the last thing you want to do unless you're looking for injury, likewise climbing the ladder becomes a feat all it's own when that heavy stuff is pulling you down so you practicly have to fight yourself to climb up with each step. Oh and forget the idea of gracefully vaulting over things, as MD500Enthusiast the momentum from the equipment will..and it WILL throw you down to the floor.

Don't be fooled by these games like call of duty or battlefield, thinking that they are realistic gameplay of a soldier, they most certainly are not.

That said there should be a difference in motion between civilian and military units, hopefully the rumors of weight being introduced into A3 will be true and that will do something about this.

Added weight does not equate to clunky movement. The clunky animations in ArmA 2 are not some super-realistic design feature intended by BIS. They're a substandard animation system that needs to be improved. Fluidity is related to smoothness, not speed. Movement can be slow but fluid. Fluid movement means the character moves like he/she has joints. The animation system, which is being revamped (what the difference between that and new is, I don't know), should be ALL motion capture. If there's one thing that first person shooters have over the ArmA franchise, it's animations. Even COD has better animations than ArmA2. It may not have animations for all of the stuff ArmA has, but for what ArmA2 and COD share in common (namely, basic movement), COD>ArmA2. COD and BF are all motion-capped. ArmA should be the same. And it'd be better since weight is (hopefully) being factored in.

[HyperU2 11]

There are bigger problems with the animation system than just the movements.

[antoineflemming 14]

There are bigger problems with the animation system than just the movements.

Yeah, but movement's a big part. However, I'd like to know the bigger problems (or you can point me to a previous post).

[HyperU2 11]

Just being stuck when switching weapons. Or worse, when trying to change gear. I've had my own character get stuck in the pistol bug that's usually reserved for AI. Getting caught in mid grenade animation and not being able to do a thing about it.

[nodunit 397]

Added weight does not equate to clunky movement. The clunky animations in ArmA 2 are not some super-realistic design feature intended by BIS. They're a substandard animation system that needs to be improved. Fluidity is related to smoothness, not speed. Movement can be slow but fluid. Fluid movement means the character moves like he/she has joints.

Ooohh I see..well thats me barking up the wrong tree this whole time.

Edited November 28, 2011 by NodUnit

[Cripsis 10]

The animation system showcased in the Max Payne 3 "Creating a Cutting Edge Action Shooter" trailer is by far the slickest animation system that I have ever seen in any shooter game. Much of the trailer is obviously just a bunch of eye-candy cinematics, but the animation system shown during the short gameplay snippets is amazing.

[CameronMcDonald 146]

COD and BF are all motion-capped. ArmA should be the same.

Yeah, here's the thing - it already is. They have their own damn studio. :thumbface:

I would be leaning more towards what HyperU2 is suggesting. Animations need to be interruptible.

I would go further - animations where some semblance of weapon accuracy is important need to be very carefully captured. Because the current mocap process captures the movement of the weapon proxy, and your ingame bullets go precisely where the proxy points, every little jitter captured in the mocap animation means your rounds will follow them.

The reason the current walking forward and sidestepping animations frustrate the living crap out of people (myself included) is because you can't hit shit due to the weapon jiggling around. I would suggest BIS needs to capture a combat quickstep for A3 so that CQB becomes a touch easier, and not "whoever isn't moving survives." It should be a glide, with minimal jittering (as usual, depending on fatigue).