Optimization and worse graphics: The key to a fivefold increase in sales of ARMA 3

[Choki 10]

Weird, a friend of mine is always playing BF3 on his laptop. (Then again, it is a bloody expensive gaming laptop. :p)

oh :D I speak of course of normal laptops

[Recta DP 10]

I am highly suspect at any of your guys' needs for $2000+ mobile workstations.

The mobile workstations are used for "work" and this kind of activity has much more priority than gaming and yes, they need the laptops and for example 16 GB RAM, they are software engineers.

[antoineflemming 14]

I am highly suspect at any of your guys' needs for $2000+ mobile workstations. The fact that you cannot afford to build a $1000 gaming desktop (which you could also outfit with a workstation graphics card for a few hundred dollars) because you overpayed for these overpriced mobile computers is your fault. Game developers have to push the envelop or video games will never advance.

Well, people whose jobs don't depend on expensive computers will NEVER understand the need for a $2000 work computer. When did you even get the idea that the only purpose for a desktop or laptop was gaming? I mean, really, some of you people sound so ignorant. There really are people in this world who have lives outside of sitting at a computer playing a video game. When will you people grow up and understand that? I don't agree with the idea that ArmA3's graphics should be worsened, but leave the guy alone. Some of your arguments are just ridiculous.

[maturin 12]

Let's be real. This is boutique gaming at its finest, for high end consumers. It's a tough niche, but someone has to fill it, and it happens to be filled in part by this game, because doing otherwise would ruin the core product. At least we don't have people with the pure vanity of $800 joysticks and yokes everywhere.

[naizarak 4]

OP you couldn't be more wrong. People avoid ARMA because they can't handle the slow-paced realistic gameplay. Everyone's just too used to arcade shooters. It really has nothing to do with computer requirements - look at how many people puchased/upgraded their computers just to play BF3.

Besides most decent computers will run the game just fine.

[On_Sabbatical 11]

For a multiplayer like me:everything to low except what's really important (viewdistance+objects distance);maximum sharpness and performance :D

I don't care about how the ennemy will look like since it will be dead 2 secs later :D

[Recta DP 10]

For a multiplayer like me:everything to low except what's really important (viewdistance+objects distance);maximum sharpness and performance :D

I don't care about how the ennemy will look like since it will be dead 2 secs later :D

Thats my point: The simulation genre is more about realistic immersive gameplay; graphics are not that important. People who buy a new pc just for BF3 tend to be very young and are interested in a thrill ride, rather than a hardcore simulation.

For example, playing Arma 1 "feels" more realistic than BF3 etc., despite the bad graphics of Arma 1. Another example: Steel Beasts Pro PE dosen't even have shadows in its 2012 Version, but you feel like being in a real firefight at times.

[Vultar 0]

It's not really that Arma2 is "very demanding". It is just... terribly optimised.

I run Arma1 on [Very High] [10k VD] at 45+fps.

I run Skyrim on [ultra] 40+fps.

How about Arma2?

Turning AA 8x on makes the game run on 20fps at Very Low.

Even without AA and most-of-the-time-giving-me-a-headache postprocess effects, setting everything to High, shadows to Very high gives me about 20-40fps.

Playable, but annoying sometimes.

Little note: I must admit that real-life reminds me of Arma1.

ArmA2 on minimum settings (especially the vegetation) looks worse than OFP; it really is unplayable, I've tried it several times. Some refused to continue playing and said that they would otherwise get "eye cancer". :D

What I still like: There is not that much LOD switching in OFP. The virtual world feels therefore more coherent and convincing.

Well said. Well said.

[sethos 2]

There's a reason why lots of 'simulators' tend to have very high end requirements and look really good - Immersion. Simulation is one aspect but feeling immersed in the scenario is just as important, in my mind.

I can understand the argument that'd you much rather have a smooth experience over a choppy, good looking experience. I will never be able to understand why you'd remove all eye candy for the sake of it. There's so many

aspects to a game that needs to go hand-in-hand for that magical immersion I personally seek, I would not settle for less. Especially in a game like ArmA, where in many milsim scenarios you spend more time waiting, crawling and looking

at the game's graphics than actually being in all out combat, I'd like to have some visual stimulation.

Also as mentioned, making the game run 'better' on low-end computers will give you exactly sod all in sales. This is a niche title with extremely niche gameplay that caters for a small gamer segment. Most people I've played with have had awful computers,

game ran bad and looked pretty abysmal but yet they still played the game, because it's the only place they can get this kind of gameplay.

You decided to be part of PC gaming on a higher level, that costs money, like any big-boy's hobby.

[sickboy 13]

There's a reason why lots of 'simulators' tend to have very high end requirements and look really good - Immersion. Simulation is one aspect but feeling immersed in the scenario is just as important, in my mind.

I can understand the argument that'd you much rather have a smooth experience over a choppy, good looking experience. I will never be able to understand why you'd remove all eye candy for the sake of it. There's so many

aspects to a game that needs to go hand-in-hand for that magical immersion I personally seek, I would not settle for less. Especially in a game like ArmA, where in many milsim scenarios you spend more time waiting, crawling and looking

at the game's graphics than actually being in all out combat, I'd like to have some visual stimulation.

Amen.

I guess there's the Married Simulation Type-O guy, and the Unmarried one :P (age-agnostic)

[kimozabbi 1]

in many milsim scenarios you spend more time waiting, crawling and looking at the game's graphics than actually being in all out combat, I'd like to have some visual stimulation.

Right on man! ARMA 3 graphics are looking so amazing I couldn't even imagine how shitty it would be having to play it on low settings. Everyone is stunned at how sexy the graphics are looking http://kotaku.com/5903608/arma-3-still-looks-like-2012s-sexiest-war-game

BIS got passion in their pants and aint afraid to show it. ARMA 3 sexy and we know it!

[Reoisasa 1]

Well, people whose jobs don't depend on expensive computers will NEVER understand the need for a $2000 work computer. When did you even get the idea that the only purpose for a desktop or laptop was gaming? I mean, really, some of you people sound so ignorant. There really are people in this world who have lives outside of sitting at a computer playing a video game. When will you people grow up and understand that? I don't agree with the idea that ArmA3's graphics should be worsened, but leave the guy alone. Some of your arguments are just ridiculous.

Hold on now. I believe it is you jumping to conclusions here. I never said the only purpose for a computer was for gaming. This is a complete straw man fallacy on your part, which makes you look immature, not me. I have done the research and built numerous computers, and I know that for $2000 you can build something that is completely top of the line, and that $1200 or so will do anything you need it to do.

And Recta, I understand that they may be software engineers, but excuse me, 16 gigs of RAM is not only not that expensive at all, it is not even the limit on RAM these days. 16 gigs of RAM will run you maybe $100-$150 bucks, much less if you wait for a deal. If they were serious about needing power they would not be messing with laptops anyway. Last time I checked a desktop can get 64 gigs of RAM running for 400 bucks. Try that on a laptop... good luck.

I am simply making a case for true desktop computers. Not the crap companies will sell you for thousands of dollars, or the overpriced laptops that are even worse. Unless one absolutely needs to be on the road while doing high end computing there is no reason for a laptop, except convenience. I personally bought a net-book for a few hundred dollars that I can write my code on and then compile it on a relatively high end desktop I built two years ago for less than $1000.

It is a personal choice to go for a workstation laptop instead of a desktop of any kind. With a laptop you get mobility, but you pay for it, and you cannot complain when you cannot run the latest video games or open up that latest rendering. With a desktop you get something that is cheaper, more powerful, and more conducive to both work and play. All of you guys need to evaluate what your wants and needs are, not jump down other people's throats, and make a decision for yourself. Understand however, that once you have made that decision there are certain topics of conversation that you no longer have a fair say in joining.

Software Engineer or Nuclear Physicist, the real power of computing does not limit itself to the size of a laptop, and there are ways to easily avoid and circumvent the "need" for a laptop that will allow you to have both portability and power (for whatever work or play you wish) for less than laptops will ever cost you.

[kimozabbi 1]

Laptops are something to buy for your wife or girlfriend to keep her off your gaming rig. :)

[antoineflemming 14]

Either way, Reoisasa, this discussion was about turning down ArmA's graphics, NOT about a person's choice in computers. So you've taken the discussion offtopic anyway. So keep this thread on topic. You can discuss whether or not the graphics need to be turned down without making judgments about the OP based on computer choices.

As I said, I don't want graphics turned down for the sake of smoothness, but it would be good if players who wanted that had the option. Yeah, you can turn down some options, but I'd like to be able to disable some particle effects. There's nothing wrong with more specific options like turning down smoke, or dust, or fire, or turning down bloom while keeping motion blur (instead of just disabling post-process fx). Yeah, this is more appropriate for the suggestions thread, but I think at least having the option to turn down more specific aspects of the graphics would satisfy the OP.

Edited April 24, 2012 by antoineflemming

[Reoisasa 1]

If you would notice my previous post and the original post, ARMA III's graphics and the computers people have are intimately connected. I was making an argument that we cannot let developers feel limited, that they need to have the freedom to push the envelope of what can be done and not be held back by people who have made choices (life choices or purchasing choices) that limit their ability to play the game. In order for video games to evolve and continue to succeed we need to let devolution know we want everything they can throw at us, even if it means we cannot feasibly play the game on the highest settings for a few years.

[antoineflemming 14]

If you would notice my previous post and the original post, ARMA III's graphics and the computers people have are intimately connected. I was making an argument that we cannot let developers feel limited, that they need to have the freedom to push the envelope of what can be done and not be held back by people who have made choices (life choices or purchasing choices) that limit their ability to play the game. In order for video games to evolve and continue to succeed we need to let devolution know we want everything they can throw at us, even if it means we cannot feasibly play the game on the highest settings for a few years.

Well, yeah, someone's computer factors into a discussion when you're talking about max settings, but honestly this is more about the absolute lowest settings that ArmA3 can play on. OP shouldn't have to have a gaming laptop to play ArmA3 on lowest settings. . Because if ArmA3's lowest settings could work for the OP, then lowering the overall quality of ArmA3's graphics wouldn't really be a suggestion for getting ArmA3 to run on lowend computers. If you could lower the baseline graphics, then you can include more low end computers, hence why I think being able to turn more things off would be good.

Here's the thing. You guys are concerned with trying to get the OP to be able to play ArmA3 on higher settings. That's not bad to try to help in that regard, but the OP wasn't asking how to play ArmA3 on better graphics settings. OP suggested lowering ArmA3's overall graphics bar to make it better playable. Don't agree with that, but I think OP and someone else here said that graphics aren't all that important to them. So offer ideas (here and in the suggestions thread) that would help OP be able to turn off whatever graphical options he doesn't care about. Players shouldn't be forced to play ArmA at high graphics settings (like Crysis...). If players want to play ArmA3 at crap graphics settings then they should be able to. So ArmA3 should lower the baseline graphics bar just as it upped the max graphics bar from ArmA2 (ArmA3 max graphics > ArmA2 max graphics). How about ArmA3 lowest graphics < ArmA2 lowest graphics.

[froggyluv 2136]

The thing is that the OP stated his friends are not happy playing Arma2 at minimum settings stating they would get "eye cancer". So to state they only care about performance and realism is not true. Basically they want a higher standard of 'minimum' and who can be sure that by just giving a few more UI settings ie.. disable particles,smoke.... that they would be satisfied? Speaking of which how can you be so sure that it is just a simple process for the Dev's to add a few more graphical options to the UI - they still need to work hard to keep a standard and this sounds like a lot more work.

Remember, Arma3 is a sexy date and sexy dates require money, preparation and generally high standards overall ;)

[tonygrunt 10]

My objection to reduced graphics is that some effects like smoke, vegetation or clouds are not only eye candy but are part of the realism aspect of the game. At least in MP you shouldn't be able to turn them off or you would get an unfair advantage.

[antoineflemming 14]

My objection to reduced graphics is that some effects like smoke, vegetation or clouds are not only eye candy but are part of the realism aspect of the game. At least in MP you shouldn't be able to turn them off or you would get an unfair advantage.

I'm not talking like smoke grenades. I'm talking like smoke from a burning vehicle, or dust for example. I've recognized that some of those particle effects sometimes cause my game to lag a little. For lower-end computers, that could be worse.

@froggyluv: ArmA3 is a game... there's some code that determines the amount of fog for example, or the time that smoke from a burning vehicle is present. I'm not saying that it's a simple process. I'm saying that if the devs can add an option for post processing effects that includes bloom and motion blur (two mutually exclusive effects) for example, then they can add options for each of those effects. Yeah, it'll require work, everything does. But I have noticed that environmental particle effects do contribute to lag.

[ratszo 17]

Either you're a pc gamer or you're not. Gaming rigs can be cheap if you build yourself.

Console games are made for people who just want to play from time to time without hassle.

That's why most titles are ported to console. PC gaming is a niche market for afew geeks like us.

[batto 17]

Either you're a pc gamer or you're not. Gaming rigs can be cheap if you build yourself.

Console games are made for people who just want to play from time to time without hassle.

That's why most titles are ported to console. PC gaming is a niche market for afew geeks like us.

This is such awful marketing :( Hopefully you're not BIS.

[antoineflemming 14]

Either you're a pc gamer or you're not. Gaming rigs can be cheap if you build yourself.

Console games are made for people who just want to play from time to time without hassle.

That's why most titles are ported to console. PC gaming is a niche market for afew geeks like us.

What does this discussion have to do with consoles and console ports? Please, stop going off topic. This has NOTHING to do with consoles, ports, or whether someone is a true pc gamer or not.

And, by the way, PC gaming is for those who prefer good graphics and a mouse and keyboard. Simulators are a niche market for geeks...

[froggyluv 2136]

This discussion is trivial. First off the thread title claims how to sell Arma3 fivefold and then asks for laptop compatible settings -a strangely uncompelling argument. The game - just like every other -has minimum specs as well as offers a free version to test out. Speaking of which, in the intial post it states that he has 4 friends who would buy it if blah blah...then goes on to say that it plays as a pixelated mess on their systems. How are they playing the pixelated mess if they didnt buy it :rolleyes:

A thread about increased UI settings would be more appropriate.

[Hillsbills 1]

Laptops are something to buy for your wife or girlfriend to keep her off your gaming rig. :)

+over9000

[antoineflemming 14]

This discussion is trivial. First off the thread title claims how to sell Arma3 fivefold and then asks for laptop compatible settings -a strangely uncompelling argument. The game - just like every other -has minimum specs as well as offers a free version to test out. Speaking of which, in the intial post it states that he has 4 friends who would buy it if blah blah...then goes on to say that it plays as a pixelated mess on their systems. How are they playing the pixelated mess if they didnt buy it :rolleyes:

A thread about increased UI settings would be more appropriate.

Honestly, you're right. The discussion is trivial. IMO thread needs to be closed. Cuz BIS isn't going to lower the maximum graphics settings anyway.