Finding the right ballance between realism and playability

[Cripsis 10]

You're ignoring that many things outside of changing the actual gameplay and "dumbing the game down" can improve accessibility.

Reread the first post, the OP made a comment about cutting-down on the realism.

Any way you slice it cutting-down on the realism equates to dumbing down the game.

[dragon01 902]

Well, in theory, you could cut down on realism without dumbing the game down.

You'd get a game that is ridiculously hard without any particular reason, and counterintuitive to boot. In short, this would be pretty stupid. :)

[metalcraze 290]

Well, in theory, you could cut down on realism without dumbing the game down.

No you can't. Arcade is always "dumber" than realistic and there is only one dimensional scale when it comes to this.

[Cripsis 10]

Well, in theory, you could cut down on realism without dumbing the game down.

Bohemia's emphasis on realism is what distinguishes ARMA from most other games. I always welcome enhancements but absolutely loathe deliberately dumbed down bland gameplay, there are already enough 'designed for morons' games.

[ghost101 10]

Games for people with a learning disability

- from Wikipedia's article Video-game "Accesability"

Just about closes the case on the entire debate really :D

---------- Post added at 03:58 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:46 AM ----------

Surely, a proper UI, direct and streamlined access to commands, controls as well as references and tutorials would streamline and improve the usability.

don't remember saying I had anything against perfecting ArmA's interface, documentation and general workflow. I'm all for usability improvements.

I specifically said that I do not like Accessibility and "widening participation" to enable retards to access ArmA. That's not because I have anything against retards, it's simply because FPS games which cater for retards already dominate the FPS market. The only FPS I have left to enjoy is ArmA - so I do not want it retarded in anyway.

I don't think that's selfish, I think that's more than fair. Retards have 99.9% of all FPS games out there, I have just 1 - ArmA - and I'd like to continue enjoying it.

[Cripsis 10]

- from Wikipedia's article Video-game "Accesability"

Games for people with a learning disability

Just about closes the case on the entire debate really

A perfect explanation.

[katipo66 94]

I don't think 'retards and morons' have anything against a'holes either, a lot of forum members here play and enjoy other FPS games as well as Arma...

[pvt_ryan 10]

Reread the first post, the OP made a comment about cutting-down on the realism.

Any way you slice it cutting-down on the realism equates to dumbing down the game.

I read the OP, thanks, and the OP gave no example of how ArmA was doing so, so that hasn't figured into any of the responses in this thread. Why don't you instead reread the true definition of accessibility, and the examples of it that I gave? The fact of the matter is that while "accessibility" with its connotations has become a sort of dreaded buzzword with respect to video game development, its true meaning is not something that people should see as a necessarily bad thing, and unless you can give some evidence that BIS will dumb the game down, I'm not concerned to hear the developers talking about improving accessibility.

don't remember saying I had anything against perfecting ArmA's interface, documentation and general workflow. I'm all for usability improvements.

I specifically said that I do not like Accessibility and "widening participation" to enable retards to access ArmA. That's not because I have anything against retards, it's simply because FPS games which cater for retards already dominate the FPS market. The only FPS I have left to enjoy is ArmA - so I do not want it retarded in anyway.

I don't think that's selfish, I think that's more than fair. Retards have 99.9% of all FPS games out there, I have just 1 - ArmA - and I'd like to continue enjoying it.

Look, if you want to insist that players of COD and BF are immature and unsophisticated, or even on average unintelligent, that's your prerogative, but don't ignore the essence of what the Wikipedia article is saying and trivialize a genuine issue because you're set on what you imagine to be the meaning of the word "accessibility".

I'll say it one more time: Accessibility just refers to making a game available to more people; whether sacrifices are made with respect to gameplay in order to appeal to certain audiences is a different issue. If you don't want ArmA to be more accessible just because you would feel less special if more people played it, just say so. If you're so afraid of hearing the developers use the word, give some examples of what you fear may happen in terms of individual changes to gameplay.

[ProfTournesol 956]

Calling "retards" people playing other games is just meh (to say the least) and childish :icon_ohmygod:

Some here should grow up and be less self conceited.

[Cobra6 10]

One of the things that bothers me on the Arma series is that it seems to sacrifice the gameplay in favour of realism. I'm sure many people who play these series play them because of the realism. But cratering only to these "hardcore" sim fans only limits the game appeal for a broader audience.

Accessibility can be achieved by turning off the realism options you don't want.

The last thing we need (and want) for that matter is making this game more accessible to a larger audience. That is what happened to Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six as well, and look where they ended up. They turned from great games in ~2000 to dumb CoD/MoH clones and destroyed their own very essence.

Keep the ArmA series as it is, if you want accessibility go play Operation Flashpoint 2. ArmA should remain the military simulator that it is, that is what got it it's dedicated and large fan-base and that is why it sells.

Cobra 6

Edited October 30, 2011 by Cobra6

[Cripsis 10]

I read the OP, thanks, and the OP gave no example of how ArmA was doing so.

These comments were made by the OP in the first post -

One of the things that bothers me on the Arma series is that it seems to sacrifice the gameplay in favour of realism.

And before you say that cutting-down on the realism is a bad thing per-se, do not forget that neither OFP nor the Arma series are actual "war sims". They clearly fall somewhere in-between realism and arcade.

The OP clearly has an issue with ARMA's gameplay and would prefer BIS to dumb-down/diminish/dwindle/reduce/simplify realistic gameplay in favor of more arcadish gameplay.

The true definition of accessibility is inconsequential, what is relevant is the context in which the word is being used by the OP in this thread.

[wiggum2 31]

Keep the ArmA series as it is, if you want accessibility go play Operation Flashpoint 2. ArmA should remain the military simulator that it is, that is what got it it's dedicated and large fan-base and that is why it sells.

I have to disagree here.

I never considered ArmA as a simulator, its just the biggest first-person military sandbox out there !

Its like GTA with military stuff...

That + the ability to edit and mod every aspect of the game is actually what sells the game.

So a few needed changes of the controls and the interface would not make the game any more arcade as it already is.

No way anyone can need more then a few hours to learn the game if he has played some shooter before...

Most are just shocked about the uncommon controls and the bad interface, thats why i would like to see BI to make the game a bit more accessible in those areas.

Edited October 30, 2011 by Wiggum

[Cripsis 10]

I never considered ArmA as a simulator

BIS advertise ARMA2 and ARMA3 as military simulations, and we all know the relationship with Virtual Battle Space.

[dragon01 902]

No you can't. Arcade is always "dumber" than realistic and there is only one dimensional scale when it comes to this.

Actually, I was just picking on the choice of words in the previous posts. My point was that you can lose realism without losing complexity, but it'd be pointless. Though you are correct about "arcade" games (which are by definition really simplified) being "dumber", the game could be complex without being realistic. But as I said, that would be stupid.

My concern about ArmAIII goes the other way though. With too much futuristic equipment, game could end up dumbed down without lowering realism. This is actually a general technological trend, with everything getting more and more automated. Just compare IL-2 Sturmovik to Falcon 4.0. In the former, keeping the plane in the air, landing and taking off present a certain level of challenge. Not so in Falcon, as well as any modern airplane. And civilian planes are even simpler to handle, with pilot being needed mostly when something unexpected happens. And aviation is not the only example, this is happening everywhere. Heck, take a look at Microsoft products. The latest operating systems will require extra confirmation if you wanted to do something even remotely unusual, as well easily accessible folders for just about everything, essentially preventing you from doing anything stupid with your computer. Latest word will correct your spelling mistakes and automatically propose the word you want to type. The list goes on. [/rant against the machines]:)

And before you say that cutting-down on the realism is a bad thing per-se, do not forget that neither OFP nor the Arma series are actual "war sims". They clearly fall somewhere in-between realism and arcade.

I guess that in this line lies the fallacy the OP commited. ArmA is a war sim, though imperfect due to the fact real conditions are very difficult to reproduce on a computer. The fact that a military training simulator is based on the same engine and has somewhat similar gameplay (from what I've heard) should say something. On maxed-out realism settings, at least. Feel free to tone settings down if you want (and do some research, because sometimes, reality is very surprising).

[Maio 293]

I'll say it one more time: Accessibility just refers to making a game available to more people; whether sacrifices are made with respect to gameplay in order to appeal to certain audiences is a different issue. If you don't want ArmA to be more accessible just because you would feel less special if more people played it, just say so. If you're so afraid of hearing the developers use the word, give some examples of what you fear may happen in terms of individual changes to gameplay.

Made my day with the bolded part. I also agree with the rest.

I have to disagree here.

I never considered ArmA as a simulator, its just the biggest first-person military sandbox out there !

Its like GTA with military stuff...

That + the ability to edit and mod every aspect of the game is actually what sells the game.

So a few needed changes of the controls and the interface would not make the game any more arcade as it already is.

No way anyone can need more then a few hours to learn the game if he has played some shooter before...

Most are just shocked about the uncommon controls and the bad interface, thats why i would like to see BI to make the game a bit more accessible in those areas.

I agree with everything you said. I wouldn't call the intreface bad per say, just a tad bit mechanical. Most of us can use it beacuse we have been playing the series since OFP, but some newcommers get alienated by it. By improving it , BIS gets to hold on to the newcommers and give us old timmers :p a breath of fresh air.

BIS advertise ARMA2 and ARMA3 as military simulations, and we all know the relationship with Virtual Battle Space.

Yes we do :). We also know that ArmA is not a simulator. Who ever played ArmA for more then a couple of hours and explored all of it's features can not claim that. It was a term thought up by BIS to sell the game. They could have called the genre "Combined armes complex sandbox 1'st person/3'rd person shooter" , but that wouldn't be too catchy, would it ;)

If we are to use the word sim related to ArmA, we could call it a "battlefield/warzone sim" because it "simulates" general aspects of such a place ...

[Cripsis 10]

We also know that ArmA is not a simulator...

Correct, it's not a simulator, it's a simulation.

[Pulverizer 1]

If you look at Arma2.com, BIS uses both terms: Military simulator and military simulation, also combat simulation. Most often they refer to it as game though.

[Maio 293]

If you look at Arma2.com, BIS uses both terms: Military simulator and military simulation, also combat simulation. Most often they refer to it as game though.

OK, I find the terms "military simulation" and "combat simulation" suitable for ArmA. "Military simulator" however... :) it just gives crussaders a shield to hide behind.

[metalcraze 290]

ArmA is a simulation. But it cuts some corners for the sake of "accessibility" that ACE sets right. Like the medic system and ridiculous weightless rockets (is anyone here really happy with a rocket that will fly straight forever without drop?).

[PuFu 4600]

And again, we call it a simulation because, comparing it with any other FPS out there, it is a lot more.

But then again, FPS being one of the mostly played genre, there are lots of types of shooters, from duke, sam to cod bf to arma. They all are in fact FPS, but i guess developers needs to differentiate their products from their competitors in some way.

I don't get why this thread went derailed towards semantics...I for one think a discussion about how this game could be more user friendly while keeping all the features and the realism alive would be a lot more beneficial for BIS.

[Cripsis 10]

If you look at Arma2.com, BIS uses both terms: Military simulator and military simulation, also combat simulation. Most often they refer to it as game though.

Steel Beasts Pro PE and DCS:A-10C Warthog are highly detailed simulations that are also refered to as games.

[Maio 293]

And again, we call it a simulation because, comparing it with any other FPS out there, it is a lot more.

But then again, FPS being one of the mostly played genre, there are lots of types of shooters, from duke, sam to cod bf to arma. They all are in fact FPS, but i guess developers needs to differentiate their products from their competitors in some way.

I don't get why this thread went derailed towards semantics...I for one think a discussion about how this game could be more user friendly while keeping all the features and the realism alive would be a lot more beneficial for BIS.

Yeah Pufu's right.

Well let's see ( based on information from the dev's):

1. 15 tutorial missions and a SP campaign tutorial hint system.

2. Improved action menu.

3. Optimized net code.

4. 3D editor. This will take some of the hasle out of unit/object placement. The editor will also feature a drop down menu for unit customatization.

5. Improved MP intreface and chat no details but still...

6.Improved command interface.

7. Intruduction of physx

The above seems like a good start.

A interaction key for objects in the environment would be nice. That way you would not have to go through your action menu.

Ex: Look up and press E to climb ladder or look at the left barn door and press E to open the left barn door. ( ignore the fact E is used for leaning right)

It would also be nice if the game to checks for patches automatically. This would be helpfull to players that are not "armaholics" and forget to check for new patches. If the integrated patcher is not possible, maybe a RSS feeder integrated in the start menu with the latest official news from BIS.

That's all I can think of right now.

[pvt_ryan 10]

The OP clearly has an issue with ARMA's gameplay and would prefer BIS to dumb-down/diminish/dwindle/reduce/simplify realistic gameplay in favor of more arcadish gameplay.

The true definition of accessibility is inconsequential, what is relevant is the context in which the word is being used by the OP in this thread.

Let's be honest, how much of the discussion in this post has centered on these supposed sacrifices in the gameplay? None, because no examples were given. The discussion has essentially become about the distinction between usability and accessibility, and that's what my posts are concerning. If everyone was so concerned about keeping things on-topic, they would have just used the same term as the OP, which if you look at the thread title is "playability". Instead, people before me made this into a rant about what connotations "accessibility" may have to them.

Anyway, I'm sorry if it seems like I'm arguing semantics, but ultimately my point is that accessibility isn't always a bad thing; in fact, often it can be very good. Now, let me say I do appreciate the current manageable size of the ArmA community, and so I'm not hoping that it becomes much more popular, but I think the assumption that if it did become popular it would necessarily be because BIS "sold out" or "dumbed the game down" is unfair.

[someone1 10]

I have left this thread in the case you haven't noticed and will not respond to any replys. I don't care about it anymore (or the Arma franchise for that matter).

[Zoz 10]

I have left this thread in the case you haven't noticed and will not respond to any replys. I don't care about it anymore (or the Arma franchise for that matter).

Then why did you post that?

"Look at me, I dont care!"

Bah.. First asks for more accesibility then suddenly stops caring about the franchise..

Watch out BI, people throwing suggestions around are not even fans of the serie..

Edited October 30, 2011 by Zoz