The trouble with getting people into Arma

[dmarkwick 261]

Context. The context is perfectly clear in this thread and has been clarified many times, and insisting on reminding us of another context does not help. However, as you insist that you know the correct contextual meaning of the word "accessible" and for some reason cannot fathom it in another context, I will refrain from using it in posts I suspect you might read :)

[rainbird 1]

Context. The context is perfectly clear in this thread and has been clarified many times, and insisting on reminding us of another context does not help. However, as you insist that you know the correct contextual meaning of the word "accessible" and for some reason cannot fathom it in another context, I will refrain from using it in posts I suspect you might read :)

The context is HCI in the game-industry and your teminology is incorrect :) I'm sure I'll be able to untangle your meaning but that doesn't mean I have to follow suit. Remember, you and others were offended by my correct use of the word. Not the other way around. :)

[Tonci87 163]

Hehe in 5 or 10 years we will hear and see some totally new word creations that will sound more "accessible" to the target groups ears than those "userfriendly" old terms and meanings. As long as people like to buy & play games all is fine. Perhaps we should open a new thread and list all the things marketing staff/publishers/devs said before release and what the player really got. Or something like "The best pre-release quotes, promises and ads!" ;)

What immediately comes to my mind:

The Creative Assembly, regarding Empire Total War

They promised so much before release but what really got my attention was that they claimed that there will be Sea Battles with visible shore and islands and stuff like that. They had this in Trailers labeled as "Original Scenes from the Game" and had it even as a screenshot on the back of the box. Guess what, they cut it out, all Sea battles were held on the open sea, so every Sea Map was the same.

Never believe PR.

Regarding the Movement in Arma:

It could be improved, made more fluid, but I like the generall feel.

[antoineflemming 14]

The context is HCI in the game-industry and your teminology is incorrect :) I'm sure I'll be able to untangle your meaning but that doesn't mean I have to follow suit. Remember, you and others were offended by my correct use of the word. Not the other way around. :)

I presented you with the DEFINITION, which is the CORRECT MEANING. It's YOU who is offended by the CORRECT use of the WORD. Or all of a sudden is the definition WRONG and your interpretation correct? If so, then go write your own dictionary.

[rainbird 1]

If the only understanding you have on subjects is derived from definitions of individual words in a dictionary...wow...just wow.

I know why you want ArmA made more accessible XD

[Charles Darwin 10]

Accessible = not having to fart around with a badly designed interaction menu.

Take for example the aircraft in ArmA..unless you take the time to re-map all the keys needed controlling flags gear countermeasures etc the planes are useless because the mouse menu is useless when in a plane.

now if you think, by asking for a better menu, i am asking for the developers to "dumb down" the aircraft in arma...I play DCS A-10C almost as much as I play ArmA...DCS A-10C is more accessible because the key combinations make sense and there is no clunky mouse menu. If you think DCS is dumbed down simulation compared to ArmA. You have never played ArmA or DCS lol

[rainbird 1]

Usable = not having to fart around with badly designed interaction.

Accessible = something completely different.

But I understand what you are saying so I'm going to quit nitpicking at people in this thread now :D

[antoineflemming 14]

If the only understanding you have on subjects is derived from definitions of individual words in a dictionary...wow...just wow.

I know why you want ArmA made more accessible XD

Honestly, there isn't much difference between the words anyway. My point is that there is no place in the meaning of accessible that means dumbing down. I don't care what other developers have said. They just don't know what accessible actually means, just like you are ignoring what the word actually means. Hell, the dictionary even provides context so that you can understand what it means. How else do we know what words mean? Someone sets the damn standard. I can say that YES means NO, and NO mean YES. That doesn't mean that's actually true. If I say that, the problem is not with a dictionary; the dictionary doesn't automatically become wrong. It means I don't understand what it actually means. Just because developers don't understand the meaning of accessible doesn't mean that it has a different meaning than the true meaning of the word. The meaning of the word is up there. Developers who said they were making the game accessible either didn't understand what it actually means to be accessible, or they went beyond what they said they were going to do, or they just straight up lied. Just because they messed up, and said accessible when they meant removing features, doesn't mean that this is what everyone here wants or that this is what BIS will do.

Bottom line, what I posted is what accessible actually means. Those developers didn't make their games more accessible. They made their games more simple, and more arcadey. Why don't you actually stop to see what DMarkwick, Charles Darwin, and I are actually saying, and compare it to the actual meaning of the word accessible. That's accessible.

And, seriously, who argues with what's in a dictionary? Do you even know the purpose of it? (and, in case you don't know, this is a rhetorical question)

---------- Post added at 13:29 ---------- Previous post was at 13:27 ----------

Usable = not having to fart around with badly designed interaction.

Accessible = something completely different.

But I understand what you are saying so I'm going to quit nitpicking at people in this thread now :D

Do I need to repost the definition of the words until you get it? BOTH mean not having to deal with a badly designed interface. How old are you?

[rainbird 1]

You're absolutely right. I bow down to your superior age and wisdom. Forgive my ignorance on this subject.

Excuse me while I burn my HCI books, erase the numerous discussions I've had with various Producers and replace them with a single dictionary.

Usability

Accessibility

[dmarkwick 261]

You're absolutely right. I bow down to your superior age and wisdom. Forgive my ignorance on this subject.

Excuse me while I burn my HCI books, erase the numerous discussions I've had with various Producers and replace them with a single dictionary.

Usability

Accessibility

Hmm Wikipedia... or The Dictionary.... :)

In any case, I don't see any contextual link between what you posted as a definition, and your assertion that making Falcon 4 more accessible (your example) turns it into Lock-On. The implication being that it means dumbing down. You've introduced a third meaning in your defence of your initial response.

This thread is becoming more accessible by the hour :D

[antoineflemming 14]

You're absolutely right. I bow down to your superior age and wisdom. Forgive my ignorance on this subject.

Excuse me while I burn my HCI books, erase the numerous discussions I've had with various Producers and replace them with a single dictionary.

Usability

Accessibility

Sure, go ahead and do that, just make sure you don't burn the dictionary. And maybe you should buy a thesaurus, too. Might help you understand the more complex words (you seem to have some trouble with those). By the way, the reason I want ArmA more accessible (as in, more user-friendly, non-complicated, non-intrusive, practical, streamlined UI) is so that next to nothing gets in the way of, or hinders, my ability to simulate real life. In real life, I don't have to scroll menus to switch weapons or issue orders. I just do. Scrolling menus, cycling through firemodes AND weapons, etc, takes time. What I want is a UI that cuts the time down between my wanting to issue an order, or switch weapons, and between actually issuing those orders or switching weapons. That's all. The same with animations. I'm glad that BIS revamped the animation system. Because whatever cuts down the time between wanting to move somewhere and actually moving somewhere is a good thing. When I operate ingame, I want it to go as smoothly and fluidly as in the real world.

[rainbird 1]

Hmm Wikipedia... or The Dictionary.... :)

ha the old derision towards anyone who dares reference links to Wikipedia articles in an "argument". Classic. :) Bit out dated though, Wikipedia has become a pretty decent overview on many subjects over recent years. Of course, you're welcome to supliment the points in the articles by further reading. HCI accessibility vs usability is covered well in a very famous HCI book called About Face.

In any case, I don't see any contextual link between what you posted as a definition, and your assertion that making Falcon 4 more accessible (your example) turns it into Lock-On. The implication being that it means dumbing down. You've introduced a third meaning in your defence of your initial response.

??? a context doesn't define links, it provides a background in which terms can be understood. for instance, in our context, the game industry (the context) has itself defined "accesibility" (re: Sid Meier on Civ V, marketing departments, social/economics, mass appeal). Pickup 'n' play is a big factor in the game-industry's definition of accesibility, hence why I said Falcon would become a LockOn or HAWX if the devs were to focus on accesibility rather than adhering to the requirements of a complex and faithful simulation of the F16. Falcon is perfectly usable (ok, not perfect) but it's probably not very accesible to most because of its steep learning curve and complex flight mechanics :)

This thread is becoming more accessible by the hour :D

tbh, I'm beginning to think you might be a little accesible :D

---------- Post added at 09:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:20 PM ----------

By the way, the reason I want ArmA more accessible (as in, more user-friendly, non-complicated, non-intrusive, practical, streamlined UI) is so that next to nothing gets in the way of, or hinders, my ability to simulate real life.

Unfortunately, with a complex game, you're not going to be able to do much without more than single clicks and button presses - this should be obvious. That's just the nature of complex HCI and our limited input devices. Things might improve when we're communicationg with our computers using mind reading devices. But then, you did say that you do not want a complex game, so at least you are consitent.

In real life, I don't have to scroll menus to switch weapons or issue orders. I just do. Scrolling menus, cycling through firemodes AND weapons, etc, takes time.

that's not only true, but glaringly moot

What I want is a UI that cuts the time down between my wanting to issue an order, or switch weapons, and between actually issuing those orders or switching weapons. That's all.

you mean you want scroll wheel weapon selection, like in counterstrike, where you can scroll through your entire inventry and each weapion suddenly magically appears out of thin air?

and when you consider ArmA's rich weapons inventry, "that's all" is quite a challenging usability problem.

[dmarkwick 261]

HCI accessibility vs usability is covered well in a very famous HCI book called About Face.

I maintain that The Dictionary is more famous. And more correct :) and, once again, we all know what everyone here means by accessible. Including you apparently.

??? a context doesn't define links, it provides a background in which terms can be understood. for instance, in our context, the game industry (the context) has itself defined "accesibility" (re: Sid Meier on Civ V, marketing departments, social/economics, mass appeal). Pickup 'n' play is a big factor in the game-industry's definition of accesibility,

But that's not the context you posted up in your Wiki link. That was another context. And, this thread has it's own context. Wafting in with some "famous" HCI book's definition and insisting that is the only, proper definition is not really making too much sense after we've all agreed what we all mean.

Pickup 'n' play is a big factor in the game-industry's definition of accesibility,

Now you're getting it. That's what ArmA should be, pick up and play, with complexity there for people who wish to pursue it. That is achieved by designing the GUI and controls in a way that makes sense to newcomers AND has the functionality that experienced users want. You know, accessible :)

Let me ask you a question: should ArmA3 be accessible, or not accessible?

[Whirly 1]

By the way, the reason I want ArmA more accessible (as in, more user-friendly, non-complicated, non-intrusive, practical, streamlined UI) is so that next to nothing gets in the way of, or hinders, my ability to simulate real life. In real life, I don't have to scroll menus to switch weapons or issue orders. I just do. Scrolling menus, cycling through firemodes AND weapons, etc, takes time. What I want is a UI that cuts the time down between my wanting to issue an order, or switch weapons, and between actually issuing those orders or switching weapons. That's all. The same with animations. I'm glad that BIS revamped the animation system. Because whatever cuts down the time between wanting to move somewhere and actually moving somewhere is a good thing. When I operate ingame, I want it to go as smoothly and fluidly as in the real world.

Very well put, your thoughts echo the thoughts of most people around here.

[rainbird 1]

Now you're getting it. That's what ArmA should be, pick up and play, with complexity there for people who wish to pursue it. That is achieved by designing the GUI and controls in a way that makes sense to newcomers AND has the functionality that experienced users want. You know, accessible :)

Fine, in that case you are going to end-up with a product which is neither Artur nor Marther.

Let me ask you a question: should ArmA3 be accessible, or not accessible?

No. For the same reason Falcon 4.0 and DCS shouldn't be developed with accessibility in mind (and i repeate: Accessibility as defined by the game-industry, which is totally different to usability) . They are relatively complex simulations and they have different requirements to many other simpler games which, on the surface, look similar. Just because ArmA has an engine which enables dumb retarded FPS like campaigns, that should not figure in the design of it interface. It's a milsim.

[antoineflemming 14]

ha the old derision towards anyone who dares reference links to Wikipedia articles in an "argument". Classic. :) Bit out dated though, Wikipedia has become a pretty decent overview on many subjects over recent years. Of course, you're welcome to supliment the points in the articles by further reading. HCI accessibility vs usability is covered well in a very famous HCI book called About Face.

??? a context doesn't define links, it provides a background in which terms can be understood. for instance, in our context, the game industry (the context) has itself defined "accesibility" (re: Sid Meier on Civ V, marketing departments, social/economics, mass appeal). Pickup 'n' play is a big factor in the game-industry's definition of accesibility, hence why I said Falcon would become a LockOn or HAWX if the devs were to focus on accesibility rather than adhering to the requirements of a complex and faithful simulation of the F16. Falcon is perfectly usable (ok, not perfect) but it's probably not very accesible to most because of its steep learning curve and complex flight mechanics :)

tbh, I'm beginning to think you might be a little accesible :D

---------- Post added at 09:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:20 PM ----------

Unfortunately, with a complex game, you're not going to be able to do much without more than single clicks and button presses - this should be obvious. That's just the nature of complex HCI and our limited input devices. Things might improve when we're communicationg with our computers using mind reading devices. But then, you did say that you do not want a complex game, so at least you are consitent.

that's not only true, but glaringly moot

you mean you want scroll wheel weapon selection, like in counterstrike, where you can scroll through your entire inventry and each weapion suddenly magically appears out of thin air?

and when you consider ArmA's rich weapons inventry, "that's all" is quite a challenging usability problem.

Wow, way to completely put words in my mouth and twist what I'm saying. One, most equipment falls into a certain category. It's primary weapon ala rifle, or machine gun, etc. There's secondary, which would be sidearm. There's grenades, there's equipment such as satchels. It's splitting everything accessible by the F key into separate categories. 1 for primary, 2 for secondary, 3 for grenades, 4 for other equipment like satchels or mines. Binos, map, watch, etc would keep their own keys.

Second, a more streamlines, less complex UI is NOT a less complex game!!!

[rainbird 1]

Second, a more streamlines, less complex UI is NOT a less complex game!!!

Great, then all you really want is a more easy to use ArmA, without sacrificing its essence for the sake of mass accessibility. I think that's something we can all agree on.

gnight, tired of this.

[instagoat 133]

Fine, in that case you are going to end-up with a product which is neither Artur nor Marther.

No. For the same reason Falcon 4.0 and DCS shouldn't be developed with accessibility in mind (and i repeate: Accessibility as defined by the game-industry, which is totally different to usability) . They are relatively complex simulations and they have different requirements to many other simpler games which, on the surface, look similar. Just because ArmA has an engine which enables dumb retarded FPS like campaigns, that should not figure in the design of it interface. It's a milsim.

Why does "milsim" need to equate to having a "Outdated, cluttered, overloaded, redundant interface"?

There is a difference between necessary complexity and plain clumsy design. You need a lot of buttons to simulate a complex radar system on a modern jetfighter. You shouldn´t need a lot of buttons to simulate something as intuitive as shouting a command. Real life commanders don´t spend 15 seconds navigating ten different menues to tell their subordinates what they want them to do.

This is also a question of sustaining the game and the community, as far as I´m concerned. Compared to OFP or the high time of Armed Assault, the Arma 2 community is pretty much asleep. Not dead, but asleep. Where there once were multiple dozens of fansites, there´s now maybe six or so big ones left. Of those, probably all are of OFP or Arma 1 vintage. Yet despite being so old and eminent, many of them appear to have rather low traffic on their forums, for example. I may be unobservant, but I sense that there could be a lot more going on if the game would just stop scaring people away by being silly.

As I stated, the game, with my friends, lost a potential five players because of design flaws. Those range from lack of tutorials, lack of clear directions in missions, lack of intuitive control system for managing gear of yourself AND your squadmates, overly complex and -badly- explained command interface, on top of having been buggy as hell back when they bought the game (this was in Arma 2 days, prior to OA. Only one of them bought OA and PMC.).

Add to that the lack of advertising and publicity, and lack of something resembling competitive multiplayer, and suddenly you´re loosing a whole lot of people. Some of whom, if they could´ve been bothered to put up with the frustration of learning the ropes, would surely have been valuable additions to the community.

It´s not a matter of dumbing the game down, it´s a matter of redesigning what it´s got to the point where you can actually pick it up, learn, enjoy learning and then play, without the years of experience I for one have, being an OFP veteran. Most people don´t have the time for this, and even if they have, most of them likely don´t appreciate NOT having fun for a relatively long while, before reaching the point where playing the game actually becomes fun.

my two cents.

[rainbird 1]

It´s not a matter of dumbing the game down, it´s a matter of redesigning what it´s got to the point where you can actually pick it up, learn, enjoy learning and then play, without the years of experience I for one have, being an OFP veteran.

Yeah, I'm not being rude here, but I think you've jumped in feet first without really knowing what our little circle have been arguing about for the past dozen or so posts. Nobody is disputing the fact that ArmA's interface needs an overhaul. I've been trying to explain to these belligerent trolls :) the difference between "accessibility" and "usability". There is a BIG difference and our argument has really just degenerated into an uncompromising nitpicking on semantics.

I get your point and I agree. I especially like your argument, because you din't use the term ACCESSIBILITY when you are clearly talking about improving ArmA's Usability.

GOD!! I'm _really_ going to bed now. :D

[spotter001 82]

with all due respect to ur views, however, we can talk for days here and still be missing the bullseye...u can't get new gen gamers into arma with its current graphics. u don't feel me-check out the damn calendar. it says 2012 right? people don't spend so many bucks on nvidia 560/70/80 or radeon 69xx/79xx only to play a game which is so heavy on system resources yet so blatantly not up to those standards when it comes to the visual appeal.

i grew up playing the legendary Commandos and i learned to value few other things than just the graphics. but u can't get younger gamers into this, at least nowhere near as massive as bf3 can. people will compare the look first before they ever start thinking about what is more "real".

i can't believe ppl argue that it's the interface that needs an improvement. hell, the game is a light year behind modern titles (in terms of visual appeal) like bf3, crysis, metro, even mw3 with its aging engine looks much better but u find interface a problem?:confused:

weird.

[antoineflemming 14]

with all due respect to ur views, however, we can talk for days here and still be missing the bullseye...u can't get new gen gamers into arma with its current graphics. u don't feel me-check out the damn calendar. it says 2012 right? people don't spend so many bucks on nvidia 560/70/80 or radeon 69xx/79xx only to play a game which is so heavy on system resources yet so blatantly not up to those standards when it comes to the visual appeal.

i grew up playing the legendary Commandos and i learned to value few other things than just the graphics. but u can't get younger gamers into this, at least nowhere near as massive as bf3 can. people will compare the look first before they ever start thinking about what is more "real".

i can't believe ppl argue that it's the interface that needs an improvement. hell, the game is a light year behind modern titles (in terms of visual appeal) like bf3, crysis, metro, even mw3 with its aging engine looks much better but u find interface a problem?:confused:

weird.

By graphics do you mean unit models or particle effects? If you're talking about vehicles, then ArmA is ahead of COD and BF3. If about units, then yeah, COD and BF3 are definitely ahead of ArmA. If talking about things like effects and decals, then ArmA is ahead of COD (of course BF3 is ahead of ArmA). Now, yeah, there's some 2D stuff that ArmA uses (like muzzle flash) and lighting that BF3 and COD have over ArmA.

The thing is, the interface is a problem. COD and BF3 have much better interfaces than ArmA. I think the main turn off is animations. I think the feel of the game is the most important factor. However, second to that I think is graphics, mainly character models. The ArmA character models (from ALL the games) ARE NOT realistic/authentic to the real thing, especially Operation Arrowhead's US Forces, including Delta. On a second note, even the marines don't look right. That's something that COD and BF3 get right. So, I think that they should really hire someone (if they haven't already) who has an eye for realism and authenticity.

The next issue for me is the camera. I can't stand the current location of the camera. It doesn't look like a true first person view. I don't care what sight I have on my weapon. The entire sight should ALWAYS be in front of my face. It should never be off my screen. It should always be within my field of view. Actually, this is more important than the character models. It's about immersion. And, on the note of weapons, I wish the hands would actually be holding the weapon the right way, and actually look like they're holding the weapon. It's another thing that COD and BF3 get right. Yeah, I know that they use floating hands. But those floating hands are still 3d models. They are still hands holding a weapon.

The fourth important point is the interface. It does need overhaul. As I said here, there should be as little delay or interference as possible between the time you press a key, or want to issue an order, or do anything, and between when that event actually happens. So if I need to quickly order my men to drop to prone, then I should be able to do that without moving down a list. Two options to solve that are to keep the ability to assign keys to those commands and to add a radial menu (yes, it's quicker than ArmA 2's current menu)

Fifth important thing is kinda what you talked about. Graphics. Yeah, it's something to say that your particle effects are actually particles and not 2d graphics, but sometimes I wish that particle-wise, ArmA would have taken a MW route, take short-cuts on some particles for the sake of performance, or maybe a sort of grass/terrain-like system for particle effects. Maybe lower settings would mean 2d particles or something.

Edited March 4, 2012 by antoineflemming

[PuFu 4591]

By graphics do you mean unit models or particle effects? If you're talking about vehicles, then ArmA is ahead of COD and BF3. If about units, then yeah, COD and BF3 are definitely ahead of ArmA. If talking about things like effects and decals, then ArmA is ahead of COD (of course BF3 is ahead of Ar). Now, yeah, there's some 2D stuff that ArmA uses (like muzzle flash) and lighting that BF3 and COD have over ArmA.

All models in A2 are higher polycount and higher or equal in terms texture size than ANY other game out there (yes, that includes crysis, BF3 etc - don't believe me check the SDKs sample files). That includes character(units as you call them) models just as well.

On a second note, even the marines don't look right. That's something that COD and BF3 get right. So, I think that they should really hire someone (if they haven't already) who has an eye for realism and authenticity.

Sorry, what?

The next issue for me is the camera. I can't stand the current location of the camera. It doesn't look like a true first person view. I don't care what sight I have on my weapon. The entire sight should ALWAYS be in front of my face. It should never be off my screen. It should always be within my field of view. Actually, this is more important than the character models. It's about immersion. And, on the note of weapons, I wish the hands would actually be holding the weapon the right way, and actually look like they're holding the weapon. It's another thing that COD and BF3 get right. Yeah, I know that they use floating hands. But those floating hands are still 3d models. They are still hands holding a weapon.

how would the sight always be in front of your face?

The problem with the hands is that those are generic, and lack the IK. A3 should fix both of this (TKOH already has working IK).

[Dwarden 1124]

such compare of games is also bit off from point of release dates (even year is huge in terms of technology) and lenght of development and resources / manpower ...

if you have such budget like some of these blockbusters You can technically flood the 'corridor' game with content which the smaller project don't need/can't cover

also realize that making another clone of 'CODBFMWMOHCSS' may not lead to success ... remarkable games must stand out on it's own ...

[antoineflemming 14]

All models in A2 are higher polycount and higher or equal in terms texture size than ANY other game out there (yes, that includes crysis, BF3 etc - don't believe me check the SDKs sample files). That includes character(units as you call them) models just as well.

Sorry, what?

how would the sight always be in front of your face?

The problem with the hands is that those are generic, and lack the IK. A3 should fix both of this (TKOH already has working IK).

USMC MCCUU:

REAL:

ArmA2:

http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/3807/arma2usmcofficer.jpg

USMC Full Gear:

REAL (click link for full-size image):

ArmA2:

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/2822/arma2usmcsoldier.jpg

BF3:

http://img851.imageshack.us/img851/4324/battlefield3fidelity.jpg Not the same body armor, but uniform and helmet are closer to that real picture than ArmA's

US Army:

REAL:

ArmA2:

http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/5241/arma2usofficer.jpg

MW2:

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/5416/roachghostshepard.jpg

US Army Full Gear:

REAL (click link for full-size image):

Operation Arrowhead:

http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/93/arma2ussoldier.jpg

MW2: on second note, not that accurate

http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/875/mw3usrangers.jpg

America's Army 3: a better example of accuracy

http://www.americasarmy.com/images/intel/game_roles/intel_rifleman_4.png

Now, I know that ArmA just HAS to be perfect in almost every way, but I'm sorry if those models from COD and BF are a whole lot closer to the real thing than ArmA. I don't even have to explain how wrong those officer models are. Even those Rangers from MW2 look more like regular infantry soldiers than the ArmA 2 soldiers. Yeah, maybe the helmets aren't exactly the same, but at LEAST they are actually wearing something that resembles ACUs. Not to mention the fact that, while the ArmA 2 lods may have higher poly counts than COD and BF3 (Looking at the BF3 screen, I'm not so sure, but I'll take your word for it), the BF3 models are more detailed than the ArmA2 marine models (and that's just going by the screenshot). The model of Gen. Shepherd from MW2 looks just as detailed as if not more detailed than the ArmA2 OA officer model. I'm not saying that the ArmA 2 models are completely off (well, the officer models are just crap. There's no excuse). But they look a whole lot more like the real thing than ArmA does. I'm not talking about the quality, or level of detail, of the models. I'm talking about the accuracy of the models. Just because it has the right camo doesn't mean that it's accurate. I'm not suggesting that the ArmA models should have looked like those from COD or BF. I'm saying that they should look like the real thing, and the COD and BF models come a lot closer to looking like the real thing than ArmA's models do.

As far as the sight being in front of your face deal. I would think that you would want to hold your weapon out from your body far enough so that the sight is in front of your face and not touching your face. That's all. I just think it's weird that for the larger sights, like the Thermal sight, or scopes, or even like the Holo sight on the M8, it seems like the sight is on or inside your cheek. Especially for holo sights. Why wouldn't that sight be completely visible in front of your face? That's all.

And, no offense Dwarden, but, if you are responding to my post, making character models a little more realistic and accurate is not making a clone of CODBFMWMOHCSS.

Edited March 4, 2012 by antoineflemming
Images take up too much space anyway, so replacing with links.

[Whirly 1]

i can't believe ppl argue that it's the interface that needs an improvement. hell, the game is a light year behind modern titles (in terms of visual appeal) like bf3, crysis, metro, even mw3 with its aging engine looks much better

What you utterly fail to comprehend is that the maps in all of the games you mentioned are mere flyspecks in comparison to ARMA maps.