Finding the right ballance between realism and playability

[hellfire257 3]

Can I have DCS fidelity level aircraft? Please!? :D

jk, what we have now is a good compromise. :)

Edited October 26, 2011 by Hellfire257

[metalcraze 290]

No it's more about you crawling in the mud, hoping the bullets with curve and ricochet won't hit you in the leg making you unable to walk or worse, looking for microterrain to use as cover, trying to move carefully not to get spotted when you don't need this while at the same time the dude in the sky should only care about pressing Tab.

[purepassion 22]

The thing is, the team talks about accesibility in the meaning of your second definition! ;)

It was clearly stated that the changes concerning this aspect ( accesibility) will be made in the tutorials and especially clarity of things.

You can imagine it as a mountain. This mountain is the so called "learning curve". The intention is not to dig away this mountain but to clear the path thats leading to his summit so its easier to climb.

Got it? :D

[dragon01 902]

I agree with InstaGoat. Gameplay should be more realistic, but the training system could use updating. I heard that America's Army has a good training methods based on actual training procedures. In the first AII training, you could even point your (loaded) weapon at the instructor and get away with it.

Also, there are aspects with are neither realistic nor very playable, for instance flight model in AII. Considering that the way aircraft handle now is both annoyingly difficult and completely unrealistic, I'd welcome a move in any direction (either make it arcade-ish, but more playable, or more realistic, and thus more playable). Hardcore flight sims are easy to learn and fly compared to ArmA flight model.

ArmA is an infantry sim, which means that the biggest focus is on infantry. Vehicles also play a big part, but aircraft and boats are AI-controlled in most cases, so a simplified simulation would be fine for them. Though I'd like to see a sailing/flight simulator integrated into ArmAIII, it's not a priority. While sailing model is playable (though it feels like driving a car on the water), flying model is not.

Edited October 26, 2011 by Dragon01

[instagoat 133]

I have to emphasise though, the distinction wasn´t made by me, but by somebody else in one of my threads. All credit goes to him, whoever he was. I don´t have time to dig up the thread now and search. I´m sure they know who they are.

[someone1 10]

I have no problem with people talking about improving ArmA, but talk of making it more "accessible" to nit-wits like you really grates on my nerves. sorry.

there's nothing wrong with ArmA, the real problem is with you. go buy a Wii or something.

That's the exact response I expected from the "hardcore" Arma community representatives :rolleyes:

I just feel it's sad the Arma series have to bet everything on realism in order to sell whereas OFP also had a good story mode and was enjoyed by "3D shooter" fans as well.

[maddogx 13]

That's the exact response I expected from the "hardcore" Arma community representatives :rolleyes:

Out of all the responses in this thread, why did you feel the need to respond to that one? Look at Ghost101's post history and you will find he is not a "representative of the hardcore Arma community" by any stretch of the imagination. How about you focus on the more positive comments instead?

[metalcraze 290]

I just feel it's sad the Arma series have to bet everything on realism in order to sell whereas OFP also had a good story mode and was enjoyed by "3D shooter" fans as well.

ArmA2 is an easier, more accessible game.

OFP didn't have options to show you friendlies and enemies on the game screen with a weapon autoaim, arcade-shooter style aiming and nearly floating camera plus unlimited saves in multiple slots. That's without counting things that are there in OFP on cadet (enemies and friendlies in real time on the map, additional armor, rocket autoaim, "quest compass") plus weightless rockets that always fly straight unless you use some mods (while in OFP they behaved realistically). Then there are AI sliders in options which you can put to minimum and make AIs blind and deaf and unable to shoot straight.

With a magical drop of Simple First Aid module into any mission you also get health regen like in CoD.

Worse (oh I'm sorry I wanted to say "more accessible") than Recruit difficulty in this game is only OFP DR

Edited October 26, 2011 by metalcraze

[wiggum2 31]

More realism certainly helps playability a lot in a game like ArmA. See ACE mod.

Pressing a button and waiting 10 secs until soldier heals a wounded guy

vs.

Checking the wounded soldier, if needed applying morphine/epinephrine/doing heart massage, bandaging wounds (all of it takes resources medics carry which they don't in vanilla)

What's more interesting for a guy playing as medic here?

...shooting at the enemy ? :p

One thing i always wanted in ArmA is getting hurt by hot jackets flying around during the firefights.

[froggyluv 2136]

ArmA2 is an easier, more accessible game.

OFP didn't have options to show you friendlies and enemies on the game screen with a weapon autoaim, arcade-shooter style aiming and nearly floating camera plus unlimited saves in multiple slots. That's without counting things that are there in OFP on cadet (enemies and friendlies in real time on the map, additional armor, rocket autoaim, "quest compass") plus weightless rockets that always fly straight unless you use some mods (while in OFP they behaved realistically). Then there are AI sliders in options which you can put to minimum and make AIs blind and deaf and unable to shoot straight.

With a magical drop of Simple First Aid module into any mission you also get health regen like in CoD.

Worse (oh I'm sorry I wanted to say "more accessible") than Recruit difficulty in this game is only OFP DR

I have to say I am a knee jerk reactionist when I hear accessible and Arma in the same sentence. I literally freaked when I noticed a couple of official BI missions that had invincible friendly AI on the battlefield. I was called an alarmist but damn I just don't want to ever see this series go down that road. Just played SP BF3 -friendly AI squad was on permanent invincibility and it totally killed my will to play it at all. :D

That said, was testing a mission in Recruit (normally play Vet/Expert) and I actually liked the little colored orbs that gave me an idea where the enemy was. Not because I want to magically know, but more because the clock system is so fubar'ed I spend half the firefight trying to figure out what the hell 10'oclock #2 was talking about! In RL, you look at your mate, he gives a nod and you know exactly where he's reffering to. In Arma, maybe a calibrated little visual clue that is not too exacting is right up my alley.

[pvt_ryan 10]

I'll go ahead and respond to the thread first, so there's not a tl;dr situation, but I'm going to assume that like me the OP is coming from other FPS games on the market that are more "accessible". My view is to let games inhabit their niche- let COD and BF (with BF3 at least) make their sacrifices to appeal to a wider audience, and let ArmA be something else. I guess at some point it's part of every prestigious video game series to be "whored" out for money by a big publisher like Activision or EA, but appreciate ArmA for the fact that it isn't mainstream yet, and therefore such a decline (if that is what the future holds for ArmA at all) is far down the road. The bottom line is what someone else already said here: there's countless "accessible" FPS's on the market, and more dedicated simulation games like ArmA are much fewer and farther between.

Based on what I've already seen regarding ArmA 3, they're making the game more accessible through a long tutorial series and simpler controls; someone who I think must have been one of the BIS staff did say appealing to a wider audience was a goal for them in ArmA 3, but then he went on to predictably assure us that wouldn't mean a watering down of the game.

Greetings everyone! I saw in the rules that one is not supposed to make an introduction thread, so since this is my first post I guess I'll just introduce myself here. I bet some of you are probably cringing at my generic name, but anyway... let me first say that I have no previous experience with ArmA or any of the other games in the series, and I also have no military background. That said, I have been interested in guns for a while now (mostly just through amateur research), and I have been playing FPS's for a while, and I'm ready for something more. I loved Bad Company 2 (I'm sure mentioning the Battlefield series here is like mentioning COD in BF forums though), and I thought BF3 might take that next step in terms of depth, scale, and realism, but at this point it doesn't look like that's the case unfortunately, though I'll definitely still enjoy BF3 for casual gaming. Anyway, I've heard many people mention ArmA as the premier realistic military game, and ArmA 3 looks amazing from what I've seen, so I thought I'd check it out. I know my opinions count for very little having never played an ArmA game once in my life, but this forum community looks mature and like a good place for me to continue my general interest in firearms and video games. So... hello, and sorry for the really long post!

[pvt_ryan 10]

.....

Edited October 27, 2011 by Pvt_Ryan
double post

[Egosa-U 10]

No. Don't "ballance" anything to more arcade-style!! A whole f***** lot of games are already fast-paced, action-packed and kill/reward-orientated.

The things I like about ArmA: Its all on your skill to advance, engage and kill the enemy. No autoaim, hipfire-instant-hit-kill, Rambo-bunnyhopping into enemy territory and clearing towns with 10 different weapons all in your "magic backpack".

The more you put an arcadestyle into it, the more kids will scream about patching things that are "too realistic". Just don't.

I could aswell say that IL-2, Silent Service, Flight Simulator and F1-Racing are too realistic and need more arcade-stuff, but I don't...because they are, what they are...Simulators. If I don't like that, I don't play it.

To all, who want more arcade-stuff: Go play OFP: DR, CoD, BFx,CSS or what else...

[wiggum2 31]

Not because I want to magically know, but more because the clock system is so fubar'ed I spend half the firefight trying to figure out what the hell 10'oclock #2 was talking about! In RL, you look at your mate, he gives a nod and you know exactly where he's reffering to.

Haha, yeah.

My all-time ArmA favorite:

You standing in the middle of a big forest and your leader tells you to:

"Walk to that tree" !!!! :eek: !!!

[Cripsis 10]

One thing i always wanted in ArmA is getting hurt by hot jackets flying around during the firefights.

I've always secretly considered myself to be the biggest fan of "hardcore realism", but you are seriously hardcore Wiggum. I bow my head in awe.

[NoRailgunner 0]

IIRC BIS are going to improve the training/tutorial missions a lot more. Something that many players do forget is that - without pain there is no gain. Train hard, fight easy ... and win. :)

Would like to see interactive + working cockpits for aircrafts and vehicles, ships. Something more challenging for each team-/crewmate and also more fun in certain places/seats for players.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

We should not talk about accessabillity. It means, quite literally, dumbing the game down until it fits a broader audience. DR and RR tried that, and fell flat on their noses.

I'm sorry, but I just can't agree with that. Accessibility != dumbing down, even if this is a result often seen, especially if accessibility is part of "making for console" which I guess we all hope won't happen.

Accessibility has never had a negative meaning, even if we like to think so. That's just twisting the words. Accessibility and usability are two different things, I agree. But there is no need to include negatives with accessibility as a word.

[metalcraze 290]

"Accessibility" does have a negative meaning since it's the buzzword PR departments use whenever devs dumb down some game to tell kids that they in fact make the game better by butchering it.

Also "streamlining" - same shit.

And people repeat these words in the meaning PR departments give them. Example - OP.

[Cripsis 10]

Accessibility has never had a negative meaning

"The three areas that we really wanted to sort out are accessibility, co-op, and visuals. Accessibility- what do we mean by that? We don’t mean dumbing it down".

Sion Lenton, creative director on Operation Flashpoint: Red River

That word makes me feel very uncomfortable, it should be banished to the bowels of the earth.

[spruxxx 10]

The Arma series definitely needs to be more accessible, but in my opinion that's not a gameplay issue - the balance between game and sim is right as far as I'm concerned. The problem is that it's difficult for new players to discover it's strengths.

To me this ranges from how to use the controls properly such as using the headlook and how to survive the gameworld (never clearly explained afaik in Arma 2, Arrowhead etc, you have to watch the developer tutorials!), to knowing what types of multiplayer are available and how they work - eg Domination and Insurgency are two of the most popular (and I think enjoyable) mp modes, and they're both imported, with no in-game explanation anywhere. Currently newcomers to Arma 2 MP will stumble across these by chance at best.

And the sad reality is that many people who may try one of the series will give it a quick go, not realise what's good about it, think "this isn't fun compared to COD or whatever" and not come back to it. And that's underselling these games - if the series is to do well by attracting new players, and therefore survive, then this has to be addressed in future editions.

Some interface updates would help - the MP screen should offer modes based on number of players / the length of time you want to play etc. So if there's four of you and you just want to play for an hour, there should be an option like 4 player Combat Patrol (currently buried in Arma 2's Single Player-only Create New Mission option). If you want to play for 3 hours with 30+ players then it should offer you Warfare / Domination / Insurgency.

It should explain how to play each mode as well, so new players can get stuck in. The current MP screen with it's massive server list, no info, no favourites, and just a few filters, is unacceptably basic in this day and age.

Having persisted with the series for a long time (and over time my favourite FPS series without doubt), as I'm sure you all have, adjustments like this would help new players to see why these games are so good. And more new players equals better results for BI and more longevity for the series. And that's what we all want!

[wiggum2 31]

I've always secretly considered myself to be the biggest fan of "hardcore realism", but you are seriously hardcore Wiggum. I bow my head in awe.

...hey, just a joke. :o

But i know someone who got hit by a hot jacket at the eye...now that hurts.

[Tonci87 163]

IIRC BIS are going to improve the training/tutorial missions a lot more. Something that many players do forget is that - without pain there is no gain. Train hard, fight easy ... and win. :)

Would like to see interactive + working cockpits for aircrafts and vehicles, ships. Something more challenging for each team-/crewmate and also more fun in certain places/seats for players.

Survive/Adapt/ :DWin

[dragon01 902]

Haha, yeah.

My all-time ArmA favorite:

You standing in the middle of a big forest and your leader tells you to:

"Walk to that tree" !!!! :eek: !!!

It's "5. Move. To. That. Tree. 12'o clock."

Also, when telling your driver to move some distance longer than one klick:

"Team. Move. To. That. Bush. Very Far." :)

That's the entire reason why I left HUD markers on for a short period of time.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

"The three areas that we really wanted to sort out are accessibility, co-op, and visuals. Accessibility- what do we mean by that? We don’t mean dumbing it down".

Sion Lenton, creative director on Operation Flashpoint: Red River

That word makes me feel very uncomfortable, it should be banished to the bowels of the earth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Flashpoint:_Dragon_Rising

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Flashpoint:_Red_River

Both of which contain in the platform list: PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360.

That's what ultimately dumbs them down. Accessibility don't automatically mean console support.

Edited October 29, 2011 by CarlGustaffa
typo

[mr.g-c 6]

"Accessibility" does have a negative meaning since it's the buzzword PR departments use whenever devs dumb down some game to tell kids that they in fact make the game better by butchering it.

Also "streamlining" - same shit.

And people repeat these words in the meaning PR departments give them. Example - OP.

100% True ;-)

Also i agree that as soon as a game is console-supported these days, its dumbed-down shit for the "average" guy out there. Don't want to say that it would be the same with ArmA for consoles, but all the other games out there have proven what i just said.

Have seen it in my entire friend/relatives/mates circle -The smarter the People are, the more they play games which are going more into the simulation direction, they love realism and games which are feature/possibility rich. Stuff they can learn a fiddle around with for months and still learn more things about the product they just play with.

And: The more stupid they are (or some of them are in fact smart but lazy as f*ck), the more they play PS3/XBOX360 and all those dumbed down games like BF, OFP(Codemasters).

I know that sounds quite Nazi-like, but those are just my observations, totally unbiased, just observed and stored in brain-memory ^^.