Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
LockDOwn

Will Bohemia finally improve ARMA's PVP to attract New Players?

Recommended Posts

Until Bohemia can show that they will stay true to their game, and the fans of the series rather than the general audience, I'm not willing to take the risk of them possibly doing what Blizzard did.

There is Arma and there is Dragon Rising for a reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SO the question still stands.... does anyone know if this is something BIS can and is willing to do?

I think they can compete with COD if they have an established, solid, polished MP. BUT the degree of that competition is competition about as much as Ghost Recon or Red Orchestra 2 competes with COD, which honestly isn't that much because they're basically different genres. RO2 isn't said to compete with COD, is it? So, honestly, it's not much competition, not because ArmA3 isn't as "good" as COD (it's certainly better than COD IMO) but because it's in a different genre. I mean, you wouldn't say "Which team is better? LA Lakers or the Dallas Cowboys?", would you? And you wouldn't because, to compare, you have to have the same basis of comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BUT the degree of that competition is competition about as much as Ghost Recon or Red Orchestra 2 competes with COD, which honestly isn't that much because they're basically different genres. RO2 isn't said to compete with COD, is it?

How is RO2 different from CoD in PvP? Sorry, I haven't played RO2 but from videos it looks like FPS shooter (like CoD). We would like to see better (team) PvP that may attract mature players of mainstream military FPS shooters rather than competing on all fronts.

Edited by batto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RO2 is a generic team deathmatch aye. The only difference from other TDM games is that it has some pseudorealism (no crosshair, even though weapons are still hitscan, bleeding, even though you fix that by holding CTRL instead of medic etc) and you die fast/no health regen.

Other than that it's human waves rushing at human waves, dying, respawning, repeating without any thought, teamwork and tactics put into advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How is RO2 different from CoD in PvP? Sorry, I haven't played RO2 but from videos it looks like FPS shooter (like CoD). We would like to see better (team) PvP that may attract mature players of mainstream military FPS shooters rather than competing on all fronts.
RO2 is a generic team deathmatch aye. The only difference from other TDM games is that it has some pseudorealism (no crosshair, even though weapons are still hitscan, bleeding, even though you fix that by holding CTRL instead of medic etc) and you die fast/no health regen.

Other than that it's human waves rushing at human waves, dying, respawning, repeating without any thought, teamwork and tactics put into advance.

Oh, didn't know that. I haven't played RO2. I thought it was more realistic than COD. Well, then let's take the classic Ghost Recon games (from GR1 to GRAW2) and Novalogic's Delta Force games (All of them). You could try to say that there was competition between at least GRAW2 and COD4 (both came out in 2007), but there's wasn't really that much competition between them because they are different types of games. That's basically my point. You really can't compare COD and ArmA. One is an arcade shooter. It's meant to be that, nothing more. The other is a milsim game, meant to be realistic and simulator-like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's basically my point. You really can't compare COD and ArmA. One is an arcade shooter. It's meant to be that, nothing more. The other is a milsim game, meant to be realistic and simulator-like.

I think in some cases I can easily compare ArmA and CoD. Look what I did one page back:

This week I played ArmA2 DM on Shipment (kudos to ...) which is very small map from CoD. I'm now comparing ArmA2 to CoD:MW

It was very similar to CoD =).

You could try to say that there was competition between at least GRAW2 and COD4 (both came out in 2007), but there's wasn't really that much competition between them because they are different types of games.

Are you're comparing SP campaigns? Well, ArmA can't really compete with slaughter tunnels ala CoD (can't speak for GR). How are they different in CQB-scale PvP (except popularity and degree of realism)?

Edited by batto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think in some cases I can easily compare ArmA and CoD. Look what I did one page back:

It was very similar to CoD =).

Are you're comparing SP campaigns? Well, ArmA can't really compete with slaughter tunnels ala CoD (can't speak for GR). How are they different in CQB-scale PvP (except popularity and degree of realism)?

Well Yeah, sure, you can try to play ArmA the same way you play COD, but they are different games, designed for different styles of play. I just don't think you can compare those. If you treat both like arcade shooters, and compare, then COD is better than ArmA hands down. You treat both as shooters vying for realism (which COD doesn't do) then ArmA is better, no doubt. My example was with comparing sports teams of two different types of sports. Compare a basketball team to a football team. You really can't say which one is better. Yeah, they are both sports, just like ArmA and COD are both shooters. They both use balls of some sort, like ArmA and COD both have weapons. But there's no real basis for comparison. Sure, you can get a basketball team to throw around a basketball like it's a football, and say it's "very similar" to football. But it's NOT football. It only imitates. Sure, you can try to play ArmA like you'd play COD. Just like you can try to play COD sorta tactical, and TRY to play it like ArmA (Hardcore, Crouch only servers). But in the end, COD is still COD, and ArmA is still ArmA. They are different types of games that cater to different types of people. That's why ArmA is the unchallenged milsim series, and COD is the yet-to-be-topped arcade shooter series. And, just the way this generation of gamers is, most like arcade shooters that they can casually get into and out of quickly. COD is successful because it's popular. It's popular because it does arcade gameplay really well.

And, for the Ghost Recon series (except for Ghost Recon Future Soldier) and Delta Force series, their Single Player Campaigns played the same way as their Multiplayers. So I'm comparing SP and MP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you treat both like arcade shooters, and compare, then COD is better than ArmA hands down.

That depends on personal preferenecs. If arcade shooter means focus on player's performance than I still like ArmA more.

Compare a basketball team to a football team. You really can't say which one is better. Yeah, they are both sports, just like ArmA and COD are both shooters. They both use balls of some sort, like ArmA and COD both have weapons. But there's no real basis for comparison. Sure, you can get a basketball team to throw around a basketball like it's a football, and say it's "very similar" to football. But it's NOT football. It only imitates.

First of all we all know that ArmA is better =). Second, this is really inappropriate comparison. Here we focus on (team) PvP games. CTF in ArmA has almost same rules to CTF in Quake. If BIS comes up with original PvP mode it could be later copied into CoD (if it's small-scale mode) beacuse like it or not both are kind of FPS shooters (although ArmA is much more; flight simulator, large-scale military simulator, ...).

And, for the Ghost Recon series (except for Ghost Recon Future Soldier) and Delta Force series, their Single Player Campaigns played the same way as their Multiplayers. So I'm comparing SP and MP.

Than you're talking about COOP or I didn't know that GR SP was based around CTF, bomb defusal, TDM, ...

You should note that we brought examples of other games with good PvP like R6:RS, Counter-Strike, UT2004, ... If vanilla ArmA has CTF from Quake it could also have bomb defusal from CS and be more popular in PvP.

Edited by batto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That depends on personal preferenecs. If arcade shooter means focus on player's performance than I still like ArmA more.

First of all we all know that ArmA is better =). Second, this is really inappropriate comparison. Here we focus on (team) PvP games. CTF in ArmA has almost same rules to CTF in Quake. If BIS comes up with original PvP mode it could be later copied into CoD (if it's small-scale mode) beacuse like it or not both are kind of FPS shooters (although ArmA is much more; flight simulator, large-scale military simulator, ...).

Than you're talking about COOP or I didn't know that GR SP was based around CTF, bomb defusal, TDM, ...

You should note that we brought examples of other games with good PvP like R6:RS, Counter-Strike, UT2004, ... If vanilla ArmA has CTF from Quake it could also have bomb defusal from CS and be more popular in PvP.

MP as in PVP. I'm assuming you've never played any GR or DF games, have you? Arcade means arcade, as in like the old arcade games, where the focus is on racking up points, or in the case of standard FPS shooters, racking up kills. COD has PvP. Clearly talking about PvP. Haven't stopped talking about PvP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MP as in PVP. I'm assuming you've never played any GR or DF games, have you? Arcade means arcade, as in like the old arcade games, where the focus is on racking up points, or in the case of standard FPS shooters, racking up kills. COD has PvP. Clearly talking about PvP. Haven't stopped talking about PvP.

OK, please give me an example of PvP mode without focus on racking up points. Racking up kills is only for DM and TDM. ArmA already has DM.

I'm assuming you've never played any GR or DF games, have you?

I've played first two DFs, but not PvP. Back then we played Quake & Half-Life =).

Edited by batto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a dumb argument. Like the Xbox vs PS3 fanboi argument. You can like em both and don't let some forum troll tell you you can't. I own COD and BF series as well and have a good time on all of them. They all have their faults and setbacks and also their great additions to gaming as well. And i guarantee you that more people play them here than they admit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BIS should make their own multiplayer awesomeness without creating just a copy of popular CoD/BF/shooter maps. Hope that BIS devs think about A3 and the possibilities that they can use and that other games don't have. Cross fingers that we will see something new and unique too - no risk, no fun! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originality is great but NIH isn't.

Ponder on the origin of CTI and current Warfare versions - this is what we require, though in different form and in relatively artificial construct with certain boundaries, which is NOT a simple CTF or DM map/mode, ditto for co-op side of things.

Oftentimes, I think sales targets matter not to BIS when it comes to ArmA, since VBS should cover all development expenses; the mil buys 15,000 copies and they're set. This is why we get a hollow husk of a game in terms of 'content' and people wonder why the servers are all devoid of life.

P.S. The derps have tons of 'content' to shift through in their zed apocalypse mod, which they regard as a separate game at this point. ArmA? What's that?

Edited by Iroquois Pliskin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a bunch of us whom have always thought ArmA as the beta for the VBS Series. makes sense if you think about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some MP missions (DM,CTF) bundled with the game but I don't think that anybody gives a damn about them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
winter one with trenches

Nope, I'm calling bullshit on this one.

I've played RO2 enough to know that you can't make a 600m with default zeroing no matter what.

You are a big bullshitter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But battlefield players want fast paced bullshit, bro. They won't play ArmA unless you can do magical one hit knife kills, can bunnyhop and run'n'gun. That's why they aren't still playing it.

Not because it's "clunky".

I haven't noticed a lot of difference between America's Army and BF. It still plays like a dumbed down arcade run'n'gun.

I don't know what you mean by "slower higher skill and tactical" since America's Army is none of these.

But most of all BF players hate teamwork. That's why they made threads here crying about how they want magical respawns near their group, magical markers on the magical minimap that will tell them whenever someone is wounded, etc. How will you make them play ArmA which requires teamwork or otherwise it turns into a boring crap that you can see on public servers where everyone is running randomly around, dies, respawns, dies, respawns. This is not the way to play it obviously.

Sorry guys but you have no idea what you're talking about.

The offical battlefield forums are a wash with hatred, complaining and suggestions everyday to make the game slower, more rewarding, more skill based, larger scale and more importantly team play focused. On a daily basis they ask for everything that ARMA has just not of course to the extent of ARMA in some cases. But it's what people want.

You can't tell me you know what they want because you aren't them. You can't speak for them and why would you, when they want games to better the same way you do. Team play focused. All the offical battlelog polls are even going against the creators opinions/predictions and in the gamers favor of what they want/what I'm talking about.

Battlefield sucks not because it appeals to what it's fans want but because it's fan base has been too loyal to stop and boycott the dam thing ever since it's developers ruined it. But we will see what happens when Planetside 2 and ARMA3 release. I predict a lot of them will leave it for these games. Player stats have already been cut in half since janurary.

As for the america's army comments I don't know how much expereince you had with it but it was in no way comparable to battlefield. It was a good middle ground between a casual arcade shooter and a milsim. Like ghost recon and raven shield. Had a lot of arcade elements but also had some good milsim like additions to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow.. why is this thread not locked? :glare:

ArmA may be a game developed for entertainment purposes, but it shares the same platform and soul as VBS that is used by professionals and military personnel world wide. Therefore ArmA is enjoyed by "real men" with a passion for hard core realism ,) while CoD, BF and the likes are mainstream games developed for boys and by clueless studios *cough* Codemasters *cough* who mainly cares about profit.

---------- Post added at 01:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:57 PM ----------

.. and yes I'm aware that CoD is developed by Treyarch and BF by DiCE (whom I support, great studio) but I was using Codies as the example because they disgraced "Flashpoint".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry guys but you have no idea what you're talking about.

The offical battlefield forums are a wash with hatred, complaining and suggestions everyday to make the game slower, more rewarding, more skill based, larger scale and more importantly team play focused. On a daily basis they ask for everything that ARMA has just not of course to the extent of ARMA in some cases. But it's what people want.

You can't tell me you know what they want because you aren't them. You can't speak for them and why would you, when they want games to better the same way you do. Team play focused. All the offical battlelog polls are even going against the creators opinions/predictions and in the gamers favor of what they want/what I'm talking about.

Battlefield sucks not because it appeals to what it's fans want but because it's fan base has been too loyal to stop and boycott the dam thing ever since it's developers ruined it. But we will see what happens when Planetside 2 and ARMA3 release. I predict a lot of them will leave it for these games. Player stats have already been cut in half since janurary.

As for the america's army comments I don't know how much expereince you had with it but it was in no way comparable to battlefield. It was a good middle ground between a casual arcade shooter and a milsim. Like ghost recon and raven shield. Had a lot of arcade elements but also had some good milsim like additions to it.

You're right about America's Army. It's no Battlefield in terms of scope and scale, but it's closer to the tactical shooter genre. By the way, what you say about the Battlefield forums is now the case for the Ghost Recon forums. That said, let's definitely hope BIS doesn't at some point cave in to the casual market like DICE and Red Storm have. But, at the same time, I don't think the presence of future technology, like new designs for helicopters, make the game more casual. In all, if anything, ArmA should compete on some level with the tactical shooters. But then again, that only really involves the close quarters aspects of ArmA anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry guys but you have no idea what you're talking about.

Indeed, all battlefield games prior to BF3 were much different to how things are now, the series has become completely dumbed down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oftentimes, I think sales targets matter not to BIS when it comes to ArmA, since VBS should cover all development expenses; the mil buys 15,000 copies and they're set. This is why we get a hollow husk of a game in terms of 'content' and people wonder why the servers are all devoid of life.

BIS do not develop VBS2, a separate company develops it. BIS lease their core engine to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BIS do not develop VBS2, a separate company develops it. BIS lease their core engine to them.

BIS (BISim) develops VBS, BI develops Arma. :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Celery, go to sleep, you should be well-rested tomorrow at work, so you can make us some nice ArmA3-features :P

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  

×