Finding the right ballance between realism and playability

[Antigoon 10]

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

I find that to be the case more often than not! If you look at join dates and post counts, a lot of these threads are started by people who try out Arma, while coming from other games..whatever they may be, COD, CS, BF, etc...

While they are so used to that FPS gaming style, they find that Arma would be better if.....(fill in the blanks yourself)...and start threads about how BIS should have made Arma1&2 and should definately avoid making those mistakes on Arma3.

And then you get the inevitable...people who are fine with the way things are, are suddenly called "fanboys" who can't stand or allow criticism of their favorite game. Threads like these explode into a discussion about what terms as "playability, accessability, simulation, simulator, etc..." mean.

I think if those people that try Arma for the first time and get frustrated with it to the point where they start threads about how clunky the game feels, or how it has too many controls, or how the AI is too complicated and dumb at the same time, put a little more time and effort into the game, they'd have a lot more fun with it.

But essentially

put a little more time and effort into the game

is what they want to avoid, isn't it?

[Zoz 10]

I find that to be the case more often than not! If you look at join dates and post counts, a lot of these threads are started by people who try out Arma, while coming from other games..whatever they may be, COD, CS, BF, etc...

While they are so used to that FPS gaming style, they find that Arma would be better if.....(fill in the blanks yourself)...and start threads about how BIS should have made Arma1&2 and should definately avoid making those mistakes on Arma3.

And then you get the inevitable...people who are fine with the way things are, are suddenly called "fanboys" who can't stand or allow criticism of their favorite game. Threads like these explode into a discussion about what terms as "playability, accessability, simulation, simulator, etc..." mean.

I think if those people that try Arma for the first time and get frustrated with it to the point where they start threads about how clunky the game feels, or how it has too many controls, or how the AI is too complicated and dumb at the same time, put a little more time and effort into the game, they'd have a lot more fun with it.

But essentially is what they want to avoid, isn't it?

Spot on.

I was going to expand on this, but after all you have really put this out clear and simple. Any further explanation from me would be pointless..

As I already said in the (wild)suggestions thread: I wonder how many people in the ArmA 3 forum play/like this game actually.

[antoineflemming 14]

I find that to be the case more often than not! If you look at join dates and post counts, a lot of these threads are started by people who try out Arma, while coming from other games..whatever they may be, COD, CS, BF, etc...

While they are so used to that FPS gaming style, they find that Arma would be better if.....(fill in the blanks yourself)...and start threads about how BIS should have made Arma1&2 and should definately avoid making those mistakes on Arma3.

And then you get the inevitable...people who are fine with the way things are, are suddenly called "fanboys" who can't stand or allow criticism of their favorite game. Threads like these explode into a discussion about what terms as "playability, accessability, simulation, simulator, etc..." mean.

I think if those people that try Arma for the first time and get frustrated with it to the point where they start threads about how clunky the game feels, or how it has too many controls, or how the AI is too complicated and dumb at the same time, put a little more time and effort into the game, they'd have a lot more fun with it.

But essentially is what they want to avoid, isn't it?

Uh, people who have been fans of ArmA for a long time admit things like "clunky controls" or "dumb AI". The reason some long-time ArmA fans are labeled "fanboys" is because of the notion that ArmA is "perfect". It's not necessarily that these so-called fanboys don't like criticism more than the issue that they believe ArmA has absolutely no problems. Which isn't true. Any game has its problems, including ArmA. Controls actually DO need to be smoother. AI DOES actually need to be smarter. The netcode COULD be improved. Yes, ArmA is a great simulator, but just because it's the best simulator doesn't mean that it can't be better. Just because it's a simulator doesn't mean it can't take some of the best ideas from other games, whether they're simulators or not. And just because a game is NOT a simulator doesn't mean that it is a terrible game with NO good features whatsoever. And it certainly doesn't mean that, if ArmA were to have one of those features, then it'd automatically be "dumbed down". It's for making comments that claim one of the above that people label longtime ArmA fans "fanboys" - basically, for statements that suggest that anything inspired by something from another game would dumb down and ruin the ArmA experience.

[pvt_ryan 10]

Then why did you post that?

"Look at me, I dont care!"

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

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

Yep... and the funniest thing is that it's uncommitted players like him that cause the ArmA veterans to be deathly afraid of anything that mentions accessibility in the first place. Sort of a self-defeating prophecy, eh?

"Hey guys, accessibility isn't a bad thing- it would just make the game more exciting for a lot of players, and don't you want more people like me playing ArmA?"

*discussion ensues*

"Right then, I'm bored! To hell with ArmA..."

:j:

[Zoz 10]

Uh, people who have been fans of ArmA for a long time admit things like "clunky controls" or "dumb AI". The reason some long-time ArmA fans are labeled "fanboys" is because of the notion that ArmA is "perfect". It's not necessarily that these so-called fanboys don't like criticism more than the issue that they believe ArmA has absolutely no problems. Which isn't true. Any game has its problems, including ArmA. Controls actually DO need to be smoother. AI DOES actually need to be smarter. The netcode COULD be improved. Yes, ArmA is a great simulator, but just because it's the best simulator doesn't mean that it can't be better. Just because it's a simulator doesn't mean it can't take some of the best ideas from other games, whether they're simulators or not. And just because a game is NOT a simulator doesn't mean that it is a terrible game with NO good features whatsoever. And it certainly doesn't mean that, if ArmA were to have one of those features, then it'd automatically be "dumbed down". It's for making comments that claim one of the above that people label longtime ArmA fans "fanboys" - basically, for statements that suggest that anything inspired by something from another game would dumb down and ruin the ArmA experience.

Just to clarify, I'm all for technical improvements (more clear UI , AI , netcode , animations , sound system ecc ecc) and such.

But since I, for one, like the ArmA gameplay I wouldnt touch the gameplay that much.

Nothing makes me think they are altering it, at this point, but there are some people that suggest a slight cut of realism if favor of some, not so well defined, accessibility.

Additionaly I am all for expanding on old features and getting new features especially the optional one, whether they came from different kinds of games or not.

Its just that seeing people starting threads with suggestions to alter the gameplay just to say after a few pages "Anyway I dont care about the game, see you" makes me go "meh".

So maybe I'm just a gameplay-fanboy, because I know ArmA needs tons of technical improvements but I think that gameplay speaking there is only one way to go for ArmA, that is getting as close as possible to reality, step by step (alongside with tech improvements!) and not finding a balance (like thread title suggested).

But thats just my personal view and I dont think that ArmA would be a better game to most of people on planet Hearth this way, just that I would surely enjoy it!

[katipo66 94]

If you look at join dates and post counts, a lot of these threads are started by people who try out Arma, while coming from other games..whatever they may be, COD, CS, BF, etc...

Join dates and post counts mean nothing.... there are a lot of people who use this forum for info without signing on and participating, they may decide to sign up once they see a subject that interests them enough, that was true with me and ive seen it a few times.

If you read into his thread you might find that he may have been playing this series for a while?

I see no problem with discussing or throwing in the hat what you/we/i may think could be improved, changed, not changed etc unfortunately theres a few who just hijack these threads scream buzz words like COD/BF and get all extreme to the point its no longer a discussion.

[Zoz 10]

Join dates and post counts mean nothing.... there are a lot of people who use this forum for info without signing on and participating, they may decide to sign up once they see a subject that interests them enough, that was true with me and ive seen it a few times.

If you read into his thread you might find that he may have been playing this series for a while?

I see no problem with discussing or throwing in the hat what you/we/i may think could be improved, changed, not changed etc unfortunately theres a few who just hijack these threads scream buzz words like COD/BF and get all extreme to the point its no longer a discussion.

We actually dont know if he is a fan of the serie or the game. I think he said he liked the OFP campaing.

But leaving that aside, this thread was probably worded badly and contained too many "swear" words or words whose meaning is a bit blurred (you know wich one!) and it all went down hill from there.

The decision of the OP to ignore the good and constructive responses just to pick up on the guy who told him to buy a wii didnt help this poor thread's life, too.

Then he came up with the "I dont care", so...

[Antigoon 10]

Join dates and post counts mean nothing.... there are a lot of people who use this forum for info without signing on and participating, they may decide to sign up once they see a subject that interests them enough, that was true with me and ive seen it a few times.

You are absolutely right! That's why I said

a lot of these threads are started

instead of all of these threads. And I have to admit it's just a personal feeling I get by reading a lot of these threads. It's a recurring theme, that's all.

I am all for making the game better in every way possible, but what I do dislike is people wanting this game to be more like some other game they play...and, I admit, that's another personal feeling I get from reading these threads.

Variety is the spice of life and (again...personally) I am very glad this game exists in the way it does now. It's the only one of it's kind and imo that's a good thing. I think BIS does a great job!

It just seems that a lot of people are always saying "Well, if BIS would change this or that, they would sell so much more and there would be so many more players and....etc...". While this could be true, I'll leave the business side up to the company itself. Again, you can look at this as elitism or fanboïsm or whatever you want, but stuff that appeals to a greater audience is not necessarily of a greater quality.

So while I can get the same Big Mac just about anywhere in the world, I still prefer a good meal prepared with some love by a decent cook. If I don't like the food, I'm not gonna tell the chef what he should put on the menu instead....I'll just go to another restaurant that does serve what I like.

So, yes, all of these are personal opinions based on a thread that had the title "Finding the right ballance between realism and playability" and in some way found itself discussing the semantics of a few terms used to describe a game. And, yes, some of the suggestions made would be positive for the game, without doubt! But some suggestions simply make me cringe when I think about them. And with regards to reaching a larger audience...by all means, yes , but experience tells me that this game is just not for everyone!

Ofcourse I'll have to admit, I'm a middle aged guy who knows nothing about gaming in general. I haven't bought a game in 2 years and don't feel the need to either. There's a great bunch of lads I play with every weekend, who approach the game just as I do and enjoy it just as much. And for every 5 players that join, only one or so comes back the next weekend, so clearly there are more ways than one to enjoy this game. There is however one constant, I feel, this game will give you back exactly what you put in it. Same as with just about everything in life.

Edited October 31, 2011 by Antigoon

[Cripsis 10]

I think that gameplay speaking there is only one way to go for ArmA, that is getting as close as possible to reality, step by step (alongside with tech improvements!) and not finding a balance (like thread title suggested).

I totally agree.

[5LEvEN 11]

Please do not take away from the realism. I would like MOAR realism. :)

[Tonci87 163]

Please do not take away from the realism. I would like MOAR realism. :)

^ this

[kernriver 4]

Exactly. More realism.

More gun sway, more recoil (for certain weapons), more accurate animations, everything more realistic.

I don't want to be able to reload SAW or RPG in 3 seconds, for cryin' out loud.

More realism, please.

[Tonci87 163]

And to those that think realism is not fun:

Wouldn´t it be fun to have a realistic Armor penetration system? Wouldn´t it be fun to have a realistic flight model so that you can´t fly backwards with certain planes? It would be fun!

[Antigoon 10]

And to those that think realism is not fun:

Wouldn´t it be fun to have a realistic Armor penetration system? Wouldn´t it be fun to have a realistic flight model so that you can´t fly backwards with certain planes? It would be fun!

I sometimes think it's the limitations and difficulties this game poses on you, are what makes the game more fun.

It simply rewards different things than most other games. The cautious thinking player is going to be more succesfull than the run and gun skillbased player who simply wants to shoot and kill stuff. Although in the end, we all like to shoot and kill stuff, this game forces you to do that in a different way.

So let's talk about "improvements to this game" and not about "changes based on some other game"...if that makes any sense at all:confused:

This thread is a good example of that.

[EricM 0]

I kindly disagree. Realism isn't the holy grail. Neither is it the distinctive mark of the Arma series.

Arma is so good because it's a massive sandbox where so much is possible, both serioulsy and not so seriously, not because it's the most realistic at anything..

Arma is a game, it's meant to be fun. If realism can bring fun, fine. Otherwise, screw it. It's a question of what it can add to the gameplay or substract from it.

I like the way it is now : challenging but not too overboard. I can still use anything in the game without being a professional sniper-diver-pilot-tank-specop.

You have to know when to take shortcuts, to keep the spirit and philosophy of the real life system/strategy without the real life hassle.

BIS knows that and that's why they try to balance realism and accessibility to cater for the vast majority, while leaving the door open to hardcore modders to go the extra mile if they need to.

Edited October 31, 2011 by EricM

[ProfTournesol 956]

I kindly disagree. Realism isn't the holy grail. Neither is it the distinctive mark of the Arma series.

Arma is so good because it's a massive sandbox where so much is possible, both serioulsy and not so seriously, not because it's the most realistic at anything..

Arma is a game, it's meant to be fun. If realism can bring fun, fine. Otherwise, screw it. It's a question of what it can add to the gameplay or substract from it.

I like the way it is now : challenging but not too overboard. I can still use anything in the game without being a professional sniper-diver-pilot-tank-specop.

You have to know when to take shortcuts, to keep the spirit and philosophy of the real life system/strategy without the real life hassle.

BIS knows that and that's why they try to balance realism and accessibility to cater for the vast majority, while leaving the door open to hardcore modders to go the extra mile if they need to.

I fully agree with you, realism isn't the holy grail for me neither, but the freedom and modability of the game.

I see there a dividing line in the community, expressing itself in every wishlist topic :

What ? A knife ? it's unrealistic in modern combat.

vs

Who cares, as long as it is fun and gives more modding possibilities.

[Zoz 10]

Arma is a game, it's meant to be fun. If realism can bring fun, fine. Otherwise, screw it. It's a question of what it can add to the gameplay or substract from it.

What can be fun to you might be boring to me and vice versa.

Thats why I said that in my opinion they should'nt balance the realism (again, the title of the thread), because thats part of the fun I can have with ArmA. (The OP suggested slower planes)

I also see your point but I cant see how asking for a complex damage model can hurt the way you play the game.

Or having a good driving model, for that matter!

Thats the realism we are asking for.

The best thing about ArmA is indeed the fact that is a sandbox. You can bet there is some arma player that doesnt even know what Harvest Red (for example) is and just makes rally time attacks with the lada and so on!

Also the key word for the so called realistic features, can be "optional". I'm not askin for realism to be forced on anyone.

We are getting a optional evolved flight model for instance.

How can that be bad?

You and I like ArmA for the same reason. We probably just use it for different things, thats all.

[katipo66 94]

Realism in the right areas is great, realism just for the sake of realism is not... For example I use ace every now and then and it's great but I hated the fatigue system, maybe it would have been ok if it could affect Ai also.. And I imagine it might be interesting for pvp but it just annoyed me in sp, lucky it was optional.

And please no more weapon sway or shaking from suppression, or not the way it's implemented now, I like the whitening of screen and maybe a slight blur effect but when weapon goes into a shake pattern then it's go put the kettle on, if it was done with a better believable effect and there was a way to counter it like no movement for a small amount of time or moving to different position or something.

[kernriver 4]

I will mention this just one more time, and from now on I'll keep my mouth shut about it:

NORG: Natural Order of Realistic Gamplay.

Members that frequent Blackfoot studio forums will know what I mean.

Realism all the way. I agree BIS don't have to simulate you taking a shit in the woods.

But the core gameplay mechanics (infantry in this case) have to reflect real life actions as realistically as possible.

Take notice of NORG concept, BIS. Please.

So maybe I'm just a gameplay-fanboy, because I know ArmA needs tons of technical improvements but I think that gameplay speaking there is only one way to go for ArmA, that is getting as close as possible to reality, step by step (alongside with tech improvements!) and not finding a balance (like thread title suggested).

Oh yeah.

Edited October 31, 2011 by Kernriver

[ghost101 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).

I see you, over there, playing CoD with your trendy overpriced Razor G4m3r-EXtreme-X MKIV mouse...

You can't hide it, we know what you are!

[Antigoon 10]

The only thing that realism in effect does, is add another aspect to how you have to approach the game.

What I mean by that is, taking Katipo's example of ACE's fatigue system, not using it means you can sprint indefinitely with as much gear as you can carry (in the interface). If you do choose to use it, it adds the aspect of logistic planning, you'll need transportation and support in order to move across the battlefield and achieve objectives. It kinda complicates things a little bit more.

Now, if you play MP, I find that there are plenty of people who like this aspect. I see lots of people voluntarily picking the role of a transport pilot or any other support role that's available.

And I can expand on that even further by, for example, reloading....suppose you need a bit more than 4 seconds to reload your SAW while suppressing an enemy position (realism would dictate quite a bit longer than that), you'd have to rely on your teammates to pick up their rate of fire to compensate for the temporary loss of firepower that your SAW provides...

Same thing with medics, being healed in a few seconds or having a bit more trouble and complicated protocols, forces your team to provide covering fire, establish a defense and, if applicable, an evac option...

I can go on and on, but the point is, this can be very well done and enjoyable in MP. Like I said, there are plenty of players who enjoy that kind of gameplay. And those are the core aspects of what realism actually does for me. It adds another level to the game in certain situations. Flying too difficult and complicated for you because it feels too real? I like the fact that I need good pilots in my game, just like I trust certain people more with the RPG7 than others.

And then there is SP. Doesn't matter how you look at it or with how many friendly AI you play....you play alone!

And then all of a sudden a lot of these "realistic" features become a nuisance.

There's no real interaction between you and the AI. I can't imagine doing nothing else but ferrying AI over to the battlefield as a transport pilot...

I can't imagine playing as a medic for an hour, healing AI who were too dumb to realise they should sprint for cover instead of laying down in the middle of the road...

Who am I going to shout "Reloading" to, if I'm surrounded by AI? Will they really pick up their rate of fire too?

So if I was to play a lot of SP...yes, a lot of things would bother me as being too realistic, in part because of the difficult AI system you need to work with.

I not only understand, but I'm also certain I would feel the same way!

But I play MP, be it coop or TvT. And I think this is where Arma and in particular, "realistic" Arma shines! And that's why I support more realism in this game...not just for the sake of realism, but because it sometimes adds to the gameplay!

[Nicholas 5]

Maybe ArmA isn't the game for you if you don't find the gameplay fun, or think it sacrifices gameplay for realism?

[Cripsis 10]

Maybe ArmA isn't the game for you if you don't find the gameplay fun, or think it sacrifices gameplay for realism?

That's how I see it. If the OP doesn't enjoy playing in a realistic combat environment then he can always play a standard shoot-em-up, there are dozens to choose from.

[kernriver 4]

Now, if you play MP, I find that there are plenty of people who like this aspect. I see lots of people voluntarily picking the role of a transport pilot or any other support role that's available.

That's the spirit of Arma right there.

Numerous times I've played as a truck driver responsible for delivering fresh troops to the front line, for ~3 hours.

My kill/death ratio was 0/0, but I had a blast regardless.

Another time I would be a medic/corpsman, again with K/D ratio 0/0.

Never touched helicopters though. I can't fly for shit. :D

And I can expand on that even further by, for example, reloading....suppose you need a bit more than 4 seconds to reload your SAW while suppressing an enemy position (realism would dictate quite a bit longer than that), you'd have to rely on your teammates to pick up their rate of fire to compensate for the temporary loss of firepower that your SAW provides...

Same thing with medics, being healed in a few seconds or having a bit more trouble and complicated protocols, forces your team to provide covering fire, establish a defense and, if applicable, an evac option...etc.

This. Teamplay in MP/COOP is where Arma really shines.

But I still think BIS should make Arma even more realistic, particulary reloading, blind fire, fireing while running/jogging, supression, fatigue, climbing over obsticales, even jumping (not 5 meters in the air though) if your stamina allows it...etc.

Everything a soldier can do in battle must be reflected realistically in a game, for some it might be boring, for me it's a must.

[ProfTournesol 956]

But I still think BIS should make Arma even more realistic, particulary reloading, blind fire, fireing while running/jogging, supression, fatigue, climbing over obsticales, even jumping (not 5 meters in the air though) if your stamina allows it...etc.

Everything a soldier can do in battle must be reflected realistically in a game, for some it might be boring, for me it's a must.

You already can climb over obstacles, and there is some sort of suppression fire / effects.