Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
someone1

Finding the right ballance between realism and playability

Recommended Posts

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.

Involving consoles in this debate just further proves your narrow-mindedness.

But please continue giving me the impression that the Arma community are just elitistic ****** :rolleyes:

---------- Post added at 07:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:08 PM ----------

I request a thread lock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

You can have tutorials put together by BIS for missions that were created by the community, can you now?

Some interface updates would help

[...]

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.

I fully agree with both UI (that ranges from button style to the layout of it all) and MP server list. Both need some updates so that this future game would feel as a game designed in 2011/2012.

Don't get me wrong, i am for simple and usefulless rather than the current grunge generation of UIs..

100% True ;-)

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.

You fail to take into equation TIME. For some, this is a very important factor. The more complicated the game, the more time you need to invest (besides the wife/gf/kid and social life) into learning and playing it. Some just don't have the luxury of several hours per day for gaming.

Whatever you wanna say, A2 is not a game you can jump in and play for 30-60 mins and then get back to your non-computer life or work or family or whatever else..

I request a thread lock.

you started a discussion that has received a lot of proper replies. Now because you disagree you chicken out and take your toys and leave? gg there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Involving consoles in this debate just further proves your narrow-mindedness.

But please continue giving me the impression that the Arma community are just elitistic ****** :rolleyes:

---------- Post added at 07:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:08 PM ----------

I request a thread lock.

I request an infraction for him. Reason: obvious trolling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I feel accessibillity means the following:

To ease access into the medium, by reducing thresholds of difficulty, complexity and scope, to produce an easier to understand, oversee and use product. Accessibility in the general world, for example in architecture, means stuff like ramps, elevators and other things: essentially "helpers" that allow people to interact and get into a building in an easier fashion.

Useabillity on the other hand I understand as this:

To provide tools and pointers to a complex object that allow unlearned users to quickly understand how to use and employ it. In game terms, tutorials, control scheme, general information design and clarity. In the general world, useabillity in a building would concern itself not with making the building less complex (it needs to be as complex as it needs to be to fulfill its purpose, obviously reduced to the absolute minimum possible level of complexity), but with providing a clear layout, maps, path labelling and such things.

As for the console: Console games suffer from outdated technology in the platforms (compared to the most recent developments in PC technology), very strict coding requirements as I understand it, as well as a very limited amount of controls compared to your average PC. I wouldn´t know how to efficiently map arma´s control scheme to an xbox controller without taking a -lot- of commands out.

It´s not impossible, just difficult.

However, that´s not to say that I advocate needless complexity in the game just for the sake of it. In fact, I´m a friend of reduction. Get an Idea, and then trim it down until it´s pointed, well developed and delivering just the thing you want to deliver.

With Arma 3, I expect that to mean less Units, less maps, less Missions, but everything much more well made, tightly wrought without bugs and hitches, reliable mission design, excellent story, voice acting and art design. Arma 2 is a very awkward game to get into because it tries to be everything at once, all the time, while also swamping you in tons of content. It is too much, everywhere.

If the basics are down, they can again be expanded upon infinitely. Arma 3 needs to be a neat, finished, good game. If it is that, addons, expansions and DLC, along with the modding community, will make it grow to similar sizes we´re familiar with from Arma 2, and maybe even to sizes similar to OFP in its heyday.

My thoughts, for what they´re worth...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to be going the direction you expect it to, with just Lemnos as the map and less vehicle types. Units were completely revamped and are now much more flexible, so it'd be possible to create more variants using less models (only defining unit's default loadout). We don't know anything about the missions, but perhaps they'll do away with the whole mission-based campaign structure and go for something new instead, like a "quest" approach (seen in most Wide Open Sandboxes, some announcements about AIII seemed to hint at it being done like that).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Limnos is bigger than any maps seen so far and there will actually be more vehicle types (undersea) ;)

Just to correct things ^^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I feel accessibillity means the following...

Useabillity on the other hand I understand as this...

Well, I think the semantic distinction between them is largely contrived, but it fits the purposes of this thread. Also, where would "streamlining" (another related term someone mentioned) fit in?

With Arma 3, I expect that to mean less Units, less maps, less Missions, but everything much more well made, tightly wrought without bugs and hitches, reliable mission design, excellent story, voice acting and art design. Arma 2 is a very awkward game to get into because it tries to be everything at once, all the time, while also swamping you in tons of content. It is too much, everywhere.

If the basics are down, they can again be expanded upon infinitely. Arma 3 needs to be a neat, finished, good game. If it is that, addons, expansions and DLC, along with the modding community, will make it grow to similar sizes we´re familiar with from Arma 2, and maybe even to sizes similar to OFP in its heyday.

Hmmm... that's a very interesting perspective, and definitely not one I've encountered with previous games I've played. Although I do hate to see content cut short, with a playerbase that has as much dedication and vision as ArmA's seems to perhaps it'd be better for BIS to focus on ironing out the mechanics and features of the game.

Limnos is bigger than any maps seen so far and there will actually be more vehicle types (undersea) ;)

Just to correct things ^^

Yeah, in the context of the thread I'm really not sure whether ArmA's sandbox style map counts as more or less accessible than a traditional FPS map, given the fact that other more casual series like Grand Theft Auto use a similar approach... One thing is for sure, it's the most impressive video game environment I've personally come across.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

InstaGoat is absolutely correct in his distinction between Accessibility and Usability. They are two very different philosophies with two very different aims and are not actually simple "buzzwords" to be dismissed - they're well known concepts - particularly in the game industry. Accessibility is basically practised on every mainstream game out there today, and is the reason your 12 year old sister has no problem completing most games in your console collection.

Accessibility is basically about simplifying your product/game by sacrificing anything which may take longer than a fraction of a second to "learn" or could be considered "difficult". Anything that may deter the average school child of roughly 12 years old. It's about "widening audiences" and increasing profits for game-cos. Of course, there are varying degrees to which Accessibility can be applied - but that is its ideal aim.

Usability, on the other hand, is about perfecting complex interfaces, documentation and enhancing your overall designs. Aircraft cockpit designers in the realworld, for example, are dealing with NECESSARILY complex interfaces. There are readings which simply must be there to maintain the integrity of air-flight and so they focus on Usability and NOT Accessibility (prepubescent 12 year old girls were just never meant to fly commercial passenger jets - apparently)

There's a world of difference between the two and I know which I'd like BIS to be focusing on. I'm not saying that it is bad for a company to want to maximize their profits, but it is rather retarded for fans of a uniquely "complex" game to be almost ENCOURAGING and siding with the idea of making ArmA "more accessible".

Edited by ghost101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just feel it's sad the Arma series have to bet everything on realism in order to sell

I just don't get it.

Would you go on the DCS forums to say "hey guys, could you make your game a lil bit more accessible, doing so you could hit a broader audience."

Maybe, and this might come as a big shock, they just don't want to hit a broader audience.

Quick examples :

- Britney Spears is hitting a way larger audience then Mozart. Does that mean Britney is a better artist than Mozart ?

- McDonalds is known worldwide, they're delivering millions of lunch every day. El Bouli ( the best/finest restaurant in the world, according to critics) is almost unkown to the masses. Does this mean McDonalds stands higher on the gastronomy scale ?

Fact is, if you want to touch a bigger audience you have to do like every one else. What you are selling should not surprise the buyer. It should be exactly what he was expecting. You have to erase anything that could be unfamiliar with your customers

Real artists, cooks, directors,...are doing what they're doing for the love of it. They want to share something, even if they're putting the buyer/customer in some sort of uncomfortable/unexpected situation. There will always be people to support them, to enjoy this unfamiliar point of view.

It's the same with video games.

Simmers are somehow left on the side of the big video game party. So when someone is giving them a little bit attention they're really grateful. They're are ready to beta test a game for months, wait and wait some more before putting their hands on the final product. They forgive a lot and they support a lot. They are faithfull to "their" developers.

So while ArmA isn't a very popular game, BIS know that if they keep the same formula they don't have to worry about sales. The game will find its audience.

And I guess, I hope, they know if they go "mainstream" they will loose us, their community, without any guarantee that the "run & gun" crowd will like their game.

In my opinion, the balance between realism and playability is just fine right know.

For me the most important thing you have to remember when you play ArmA is "Adaptation".

You have to adapt yourself.

You have to play the game in a different manner than any other FPS because ArmA is different than any other FPS.

In other games it's like that, in ArmA it's like this. Period

Edited by Macadam Cow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

There's a world of difference between the two and I know which I'd like BIS to be focusing on. I'm not saying that it is bad for a company to want to maximize their profits, but it is rather retarded for fans of a uniquely "complex" game to be almost ENCOURAGING and siding with the idea of making ArmA "more accessible".

The fans of this uniquely "complex" game were referring to what you call usability ;)

I for one think accessability is not a scary word. At least not for a game that is PC exclusive.

Scenario 1:

Player: I want to make a mission where I can call arty support.

Narator: And so "Player" began on his quest to sinq modules and etc ( I cant remember the way to do it :o )

Player: OK, I did it and it only took me x minutes.

Narator: Suddenly "Player"'s face turns pale as he sees the error dialogue before his eyes. Despair follows soon after...

Scenario 2:

Player: I want to make a mission where I can call arty support.

Narator: And so "Player" puts the mortar team in the same group as his avatar and previews the mission.

Player: OK, that was easy. Thanks for making it more accessible BIS! You saved me time :bounce3:

Narator: Happines rushes into "Player"'s mind as now he has more time to watch cat videos on youtube.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that the original topic of the OP is being addressed, and I think because it isn't fully clear.

The post says that Arma is sacrificing play-ability for realism. I'm curious on what parts of the play-ability, in your opinion, are actually lost for realism?

One shot kill - this occurs in BFBC2 which is pretty main stream

Being maimed (shot leg) - this is unique to Arma (I have to admit, can be a bit annoying)

Long drive times (well it is a big world, but that is a really mission design issue)

Having half full mags? - pretty sure this is in other games, but I think it keeps you honest

These are a few examples, but maybe you had something else in mind?

Semi Off Topic: I think you may be referring specifically to player control aspect of play-ability. Like maybe you feel like you can't react fast enough because the character feels like he's drugged?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Realism is ARMA's niche in the FPS spectrum. It would loose its identity if it abandoned its core gameplay style.

I for one would not be interested in another BF#, COD#, MW#, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, yes, there's a difference between accessibility and usability, and usability indeed means what people are saying it means, but accessibility like others have said generally does not have a negative connotation. It just means making the game available to a wider audience. Things like letting you either download the game or buy a hard copy, translating the game to more languages, or even advertising the game in a way would increase accessibility. It's not necessarily "dumbing down" the game for the masses or "selling out" to a big publisher, it's just making sure that everyone who wants to play the game is able to. I'm not saying that you guys aren't talking about something that we don't want to happen to the series, but I think "accessibility" isn't quite the right word. Maybe "accommodability" (probably not a real word), since that implies that one is making certain concessions to newer audiences?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The fans of this uniquely "complex" game were referring to what you call usability ;)

I for one think accessability is not a scary word. At least not for a game that is PC exclusive.

Scenario 1: ...

In your example, Scenario 2 does not diminish the features or "complexity" of the game when compared to Scenario 1. It simply improves its interface and so it is an example of a Usability enhancement. Additionally, you seem to misunderstand the meaning of "complexity" - complexity doesn't necessarily mean difficulty. Sure, complexity is "difficult" for certain types of people, but complexity with a good interface is a joy for many ArmA fans (I include you in that, despite your insistance of using wrong terminology)

Accessibility is subtractive, as in this quote:

Ivan has informed me that the squad command is giving way to a more selfish experience, playing as one soldier in a battle that will come to life around you. There will be elements of squad command again but nowhere near as heavy as what was used in Arma II, something that was complained about and something that has been looked into.

That 's a description which indicates an intention to _remove_ critical gameplay complexity and I guess that 's why BIS use the term "Accessibility" when talking about ArmA 3. They use the word with clear understanding of its meaning.

Sorry, but "accessibly" is a very scary word. Civilization, Supreme Commander, Deus Ex, etc all used to be "PC exclusives". Very complex and rich games with wonderful (but complex) interfaces and cutting edge AI - reduced to such an extent that they're now playable on consoles and enjoyed by CoD fans. Sure, more Accessible, but many original fans would not touch them with a very long pole.

I don't see why it 's so difficult to use proper words to express what direction you want ArmA to head. I've read that BIS listen very carefully to their fans words on forums. You seem to want better usability, yet send mixed signals by stubbornly using the word Accessibility. :confused:

I understand what you are saying though, many people use the word accessibility when they actually mean that they want usability. An honest mistake but people should point out the mistake because, as you know, the two things are very different.

Edited by ghost101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
....

Very well said, I hope that people don't skip over this post simply because it's on the previous page.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Flashpoint:_Dragon_Rising

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

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

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

I would like to have ArmA3 on my PS3 for sure btw. Could be real fun sometimes, especially if I could go on-line, not really intrested in shooting AI.

I know that sounds quite Nazi-like
:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

I don't understand what you all brag about consoles. This is plain stupidity or inferiority complexes in other aspects of your lives?

Edited by VampyricTyrant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In your example, Scenario 2 does not diminish the features or "complexity" of the game when compared to Scenario 1. It simply improves its interface and so it is an example of a Usability enhancement. Additionally, you seem to misunderstand the meaning of "complexity" - complexity doesn't necessarily mean difficulty. Sure, complexity is "difficult" for certain types of people, but complexity with a good interface is a joy for many ArmA fans (I include you in that, despite your insistance of using wrong terminology)

Yes it does. In Scenario 1 the player needed to undertake a much more complex operation within the integrated game editor in order to be able to call in arty support within his mission. In Scenario 2 the player just drops the mortar team in his group. Same result, less hasle. So in retrospect, the player can now enjoy creting missions with less of a hasle. Suddenly the mission editor becomes more accessible for new players without removing anything.

I do understand what you ment by complexity. I simply did a "case study" to show how accessibility affects one of the many features that makes ArmA complex. We are talking about the whole game are we not?

Accessibility is subtractive, as in this quote:
Ivan has informed me that the squad command is giving way to a more selfish experience, playing as one soldier in a battle that will come to life around you. There will be elements of squad command again but nowhere near as heavy as what was used in Arma II, something that was complained about and something that has been looked into.

That 's a description which indicates an intention to _remove_ critical gameplay complexity and I guess that 's why BIS use the term "Accessibility" when talking about ArmA 3. They use the word with clear understanding of its meaning.

You are reading to much into it. In this case Ivan was referring to the SP campaign. They will not remove squad command neither from the campaign, or from the game itself. They are making it optional. New players as well as old ones will have a choice.

Player new/old: I don't fell like leading now.

Narator: A warm feeling of content rushed "Player new/old" as he remembered that BIS made squad command optional in the SP campaign.

Sorry, but "accessibly" is a very scary word. Civilization, Supreme Commander, Deus Ex, etc all used to be "PC exclusives". Very complex and rich games with wonderful (but complex) interfaces and cutting edge AI - reduced to such an extent that they're now playable on consoles and enjoyed by CoD fans. Sure, more Accessible, but many original fans would not touch them with a very long pole.

I'd say that the developers of said games are rather considerate to make games that may spark the interest of "COD fans" and rescue them from the eternal pit of suffering and missery that is COD ;)

But I do get your point.

I don't see why it 's so difficult to use proper words to express what direction you want ArmA to head. I've read that BIS listen very carefully to their fans words on forums. You seem to want better usability, yet send mixed signals by stubbornly using the word Accessibility. :confused:

I understand what you are saying though, many people use the word accessibility when they actually mean that they want usability. An honest mistake but people should point out the mistake because, as you know, the two things are very different.

What I want is engine upgrades. Lighting, sound , flexibility , optimization , etc. I was able to understand and get into OFP when I was 11. I find my self once again trying to explain what BIS is trying to do with ArmA 3 in terms of game-player interaction. Which is kinda silly, however I enjoy it :)

Edited by Maio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Long drive times (well it is a big world, but that is a really mission design issue)

Just put on some music. :p

Only problem with that is fuel capacity imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My final analysis on this topic - striving to make ARMA3 as accessible as possible to the widest audience would attract new players, the flipside is it would undoubtedly create extreme revulsion from the majority of ARMA's current loyal fanbase, and as a result of their disgust they wouldn't purchase ARMA3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Additionally, you seem to misunderstand the meaning of "complexity" - complexity doesn't necessarily mean difficulty. Sure, complexity is "difficult" for certain types of people, but complexity with a good interface is a joy for many ArmA fans

While i sort of agree, there is a direct relation between complexity and difficulty. There is no way to go around it.

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

And i am not talking here about shortcomings of the player animations and controls (not being able to cancel certain actions, forced into wrong animations when you don't really want to), or the old action menu (although for some commands such as say eject, one can bind a keybind that is burried within the interface).

That 's a description which indicates an intention to _remove_ critical gameplay complexity and I guess that 's why BIS use the term "Accessibility" when talking about ArmA 3. They use the word with clear understanding of its meaning.

well, not really, especially because they have already said a iteration of a game never means removing features, but building and expanding on top of those.

Sorry, but "accessibly" is a very scary word. Civilization, Supreme Commander, Deus Ex, etc all used to be "PC exclusives". Very complex and rich games with wonderful (but complex) interfaces and cutting edge AI - reduced to such an extent that they're now playable on consoles and enjoyed by CoD fans. Sure, more Accessible, but many original fans would not touch them with a very long pole.

You know we are talking semantics here. Surely, accessibility is a word most of us fear of, but that just because other developers used it to describe a step back with their product. I guess it is just as en vogue as the social one...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
accessibility is a word most of us fear of, but that just because other developers used it to describe a step back with their product.

Your absolutely right, the word triggers apprehension and anxiety for simulation fans because we have seen so many other great titles completely ruined, Ghost Recon for example is now nothing more than arcadey defecate.

It bugs me when people new to ARMA request the developers to dumb-down this game to accommodate their tastes, as if BIS are obligated to simplify everything to do them a favor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always found Ghost Recon to be a highly accessable title.

People who had don't usually play video games had zero trouble with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First GR was anything but "accessible" in the modern retarded meaning of the word.

It was a poor man's OFP though.

My final analysis on this topic - striving to make ARMA3 as accessible as possible to the widest audience would attract new players, the flipside is it would undoubtedly create extreme revulsion from the majority of ARMA's current loyal fanbase, and as a result of their disgust they wouldn't purchase ARMA3.

Dumbing down the game doesn't neccessarily bring new players in as CM's two OFPs had so easily proven.

Because CM's crap wasn't interactive movie enough for CoDdies to enjoy and wasn't authentic-realistic enough for OFP/ArmA fans to enjoy.

Making the game easier to play doesn't make it any more interesting when you realise that you've learned everything in 2 hours and the game has nothing else to offer.

Simulations don't sell as much as some CoD that you play for 6 hours and forget forever - but they tend to last ridiculously long, hundreds of gameplay hours due to complexity.

Edited by metalcraze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My final analysis on this topic - striving to make ARMA3 as accessible as possible to the widest audience would attract new players, the flipside is it would undoubtedly create extreme revulsion from the majority of ARMA's current loyal fanbase, and as a result of their disgust they wouldn't purchase ARMA3.

You're ignoring that many things outside of changing the actual gameplay and "dumbing the game down" can improve accessibility. There's making an existing game known and available to wider audiences, and there's changing that game so it has more appeal to said newer audiences. Those are two different things; the first one is the true definition of accessibility, and the second is what the term has come to mean in the gaming industry and how "accessibility" is being referred to in this thread.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_accessibility

Even in video games, and even when it does refer to making certain changes or accommodations to special audiences, accessibility most often deals with the special needs of the disabled. Now, if you want to argue that the average COD player probably has some sort of mental disability, that's another issue altogether.

Edited by Pvt_Ryan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×