What's the point of playing Vanilla Style?

[metalcraze 290]

This is what I think everyone here is forgetting and needs to keep in mind. I personally would love for arma to be ultrarealistic and include many ace features, but there are others who don't feel this way and we must respect that.

There are many people who think ArmA is a broken Battlefield and must be fixed.

There are a lot of shooters out there, but where are realistic tactical shooters?

Casual gamers have dozens of arcade shooters, what about the rest of us?

Ghost Recon, Splinter Cell and Rainbow 6 series are dead. And BIS is trying to please everyone which is wrong.

[-Coulum- 35]

Comparing AK-74 and RPK-74 with no mods is the best way to check it out in practise.

I'll test it when I get the chance.

There are many people who think ArmA is a broken Battlefield and must be fixed.

There are a lot of shooters out there, but where are realistic tactical shooters?

Casual gamers have dozens of arcade shooters, what about the rest of us?

Ghost Recon, Splinter Cell and Rainbow 6 series are dead. And BIS is trying to please everyone which is wrong.

Yes it is really too bad that there isn't more realistic shooters, but the hard truth is that BI isn't a charity. They need to make money and I don't think us hardcore realism fans are making enough for them.

By leaving the game so open and moddable they are allowing us to have our realism through ace while also making profit through the mainstream gamers. I think that alone (and of course the ace team itself) is a huge gift for us . I personally hate the fact that they are trying to go more "mainstream" and its far from ideal but its what BI want's to do. And its not like they've totally butchered the realism so far. Even vanilla is far more realistic than other games.

[metalcraze 290]

I think most of BIS income is not coming from gamers.

Also if BIS isn't a charity why did they do OFP back in 2001? Which sold a lot for some reason.

They didn't think "oh we must just do what everyone likes instead of making something new". But now it's ok to think like that? I bet ArmA1 and 2 never sold as well as OFP did.

[froggyluv 2130]

Having a keypress for something as useful and by gaming standards -well, standard as weaponrest, really isn't a whole lot to ask and I'd rather have it in some form then neglected completely in any mode.

[-Coulum- 35]

Also if BIS isn't a charity why did they do OFP back in 2001? Which sold a lot for some reason.

They didn't think "oh we must just do what everyone likes instead of making something new". But now it's ok to think like that? I bet ArmA1 and 2 never sold as well as OFP did.

The characteristics of most gamers has changed drastically since OFP - the ideal target audience has changed. (In North America at least)The up and coming generation (unfortunately my generation) is a bunch of lazy, unfocused, impatient and superficial shits who all seem to have some form of ADD. Oh And there parents all want to satisfy there every need and have plenty of money to give them. This results in lots of profit for games like COD and very little for realistic shooters. Ghost recon, rainbow etc etc. all went more mainstream... but if they had kept the realism up would they even exist?

Having a keypress for something as useful and by gaming standards -well, standard as weaponrest, really isn't a whole lot to ask and I'd rather have it in some form then neglected completely in any mode.

I agree

[Nicholas 5]

I personally hate the fact that they are trying to go more "mainstream" and its far from ideal but its what BI want's to do. And its not like they've totally butchered the realism so far. Even vanilla is far more realistic than other games.

ArmA really hasn't changed much since OFP. Lots of new features has been added and bugs fixed, but the core gameplay is still pretty much the same. I don't see how they could be trying to make it more "mainstream" if they haven't changed it much since OFP.

[LeeManatee 4]

I'll test it when I get the chance.

Yes it is really too bad that there isn't more realistic shooters, but the hard truth is that BI isn't a charity. They need to make money and I don't think us hardcore realism fans are making enough for them.

By leaving the game so open and moddable they are allowing us to have our realism through ace while also making profit through the mainstream gamers. I think that alone (and of course the ace team itself) is a huge gift for us . I personally hate the fact that they are trying to go more "mainstream" and its far from ideal but its what BI want's to do. And its not like they've totally butchered the realism so far. Even vanilla is far more realistic than other games.

thats actually an excuse. if arma wasn't "clunky" way more pople were playing it. thats the only reason. not beacause of realism and not because the game is trying to be milsim.

if going mainstream and "butchering realism" for the sake of new crowd who jumped in because they wanted zombies is seems like a reasonable idea instead of fixing game and adding features community which actually play the game, then i will laught really hard.

people want realistic games. but not "clunky" as soon as it will be fixed arma will be rather popular, even it will be even more hardcore then it ever was. but cutting things down to make it appeal for wider customers base is the worst way developers may choose.

and saying like "but BIS want some money and we cant give em more" is extremely hilarious excuse. if devs want to end arma series like that, thaths rather pathetic, instead of making the best and not "clunky" realistic milsim-ish game ever, so this fat point will be remarkable and somehow iconic as ofp cwc.

[onlyrazor 11]

It is impossible to please everyone, especially if a majority - or vocal minority - protest every change to the features.

Future setting? RUINED FOREVER!

Weapons not in widespread use? APPEALING TO CODFAGS, I SEE.

Using words like "mainstream" and "accessible"? See above.

I mean, I'd love to see the Arma series progress as much as you folks, but saying that the series is dying because it's trying something new is a little too much. And, yes, BIS are a business, and have to make money. They can do it by appealing to the core community, or trying to streamline it for newcomers.

Besides, if people like something that doesn't cost you anything but digresses from the standard formula (DayZ), why not let them have it? Same goes for ACE and all the other addons people talk about. :p

Edited May 25, 2012 by OnlyRazor

[ProfTournesol 956]

@ n7snk : I don't see much "new crowd who jumped in" around this topic, my bad. And i don't think BI consider this software as a milsim, but as a game. So do I.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

also a question: what exacly you are responsible for as dev?

I think Celery is the official DM, CTF map-Maker-In-Chief = more PVP. :)

I can concede some of my hardcore points presented, seeing as smokey and Celery are on the dev team, which tells me that BIS does still have common sense left. Let's suppose, they are privy to more information that I am at this point, which is why I think they see no need for this 'advanced' environment to be expanded into vanilla - overkill on the feature list one might say.

Perhaps, the new physics in the ArmA 3 eclipses all of its shortcoming (if any), and the devs have seen the writing on the wall, if so - I hope Celery puts the new mechanics to good use in his (now official) missions and game modes. ;)

P.S. I spent a day, or two of my time on Road Rage DM in Armed Assault 1.

[Maio 293]

@ n7snk : I don't see much "new crowd who jumped in" around this topic, my bad. And i don't think BI consider this software as a milsim, but as a game. So do I.

Every time BI says milsim it gives logic proof armor to e certain category of people :) I think they got stuck with the term and are just going with it :D

[LeeManatee 4]

i'm humbled with futuristic time set, weapon modules are reasonable thing, aswell as camo/loadout. i just don't want arma to go the way most games gone atm. it would not be "progressing". it will be regressing.

afterall arma was and always will be best tactical war game( i hope, but now i doubt )

[-Coulum- 35]

ArmA really hasn't changed much since OFP. Lots of new features has been added and bugs fixed, but the core gameplay is still pretty much the same. I don't see how they could be trying to make it more "mainstream" if they haven't changed it much since OFP.

You are right, the game mechanics, for the most part are the same... but that doesn't mean they aren't trying to expand the game to people who usually play "simpler" games. I think the addition of dayz in 1.61 kind of proves this. The question is: is dayz going to be a bridge into arma or is arma going to become dayz. I think/hope BI are trying for the former but you never know...

[slatts 1978]

Bullets are bullets, tanks are tanks.

just because its set 20 or so years in the future doesnt mean the core tactical gameplay will change.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Bullets are bullets, tanks are tanks.

just because its set 20 or so years in the future doesnt mean the core tactical gameplay will change.

No drastic dis-balance is going to take place in such relatively futuristic setting, only the average distance and tactics of engagements will become altered, provided you don't give one side a Tunguska equivalent and not supply any aircraft counter-measure systems... Remember, everyone? ;)

Hope you won't need ACE 3 to complete the game, because there's a trend here with ACE preceding implementation of essential features that later migrate to vanilla. (Backpacks, drag & carry functions, aircraft counter-measure, range adjustment on scopes & sights, chemlights, med. system (unconfirmed))

Edited May 25, 2012 by Iroquois Pliskin

[froggyluv 2130]

Don't mean to be trivial here but wasn't it SLX that first implemented dragging wounded?

[ProfTournesol 956]

Don't mean to be trivial here but wasn't it SLX that first implemented dragging wounded?

Yup :p

[Nicholas 5]

I think the addition of dayz in 1.61 kind of proves this. The question is: is dayz going to be a bridge into arma or is arma going to become dayz. I think/hope BI are trying for the former but you never know...

Oh dear lord. DayZ is not going to be included in ArmA II !!!!!!!!!!! :mad: They are only going to make fixes to ArmA so that DayZ and similar missions will work better!

[slatts 1978]

No drastic dis-balance is going to take place in such relatively futuristic setting, only the average distance and tactics of engagements will become altered, provided you don't give one side a Tunguska equivalent and not supply any aircraft counter-measure systems... Remember, everyone? ;)

Hope you won't need ACE 3 to complete the game, because there's a trend here with ACE preceding implementation of essential features that later migrate to vanilla. (Backpacks, drag & carry functions, range adjustment on scopes & sights, chemlights, med. system (unconfirmed))

what about VBS? it has similar drag/carry to Arma 2..range finding etc. which was first with these? VBS or ACE? ;)

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Don't mean to be trivial here but wasn't it SLX that first implemented dragging wounded?

I stand corrected, though I wouldn't like to use ACE as an example in every successful case. Blast Core FX, Shack Tactical Movement, various sound mods - those greatly enhance vanilla ice-cream.

Gosh, just let BIS (covertly) take out all of the interesting features and patch them into their game; just look at their YouTube Machinima policy, HA! ;)

what about VBS? it has similar drag/carry to Arma 2..range finding etc. which was first with these? VBS or ACE? ;)

You're saying ArmA is deliberately kept 'simple' to justify the price tag on VBS for the military? ;)

Edited May 25, 2012 by Iroquois Pliskin

[-Coulum- 35]

Oh dear lord. DayZ is not going to be included in ArmA II !!!!!!!!!!! They are only going to make fixes to ArmA so that DayZ and similar missions will work better!

Oh really? my bad! Hallelujah! Thank the heavens! I though I read on armaholic it would be though... I am going to go and check again. If you are right I take back what I said.

Edit

Mmmm no I think you are mistaken Nicholas. read this

unless armaholic isn't reliable, I am pretty sure Dayz is included in the next patch...

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Oh really? my bad! Hallelujah! Thank the heavens! I though I read on armaholic it would be though... I am going to go and check again. If you are right I take back what I said.

People wouldn't mind it, including myself, provided Warfare mission gets the same support including bug-fixes, team balancing of all of the units, and then there's the co-op crowd that will demand similar attention.

[-Coulum- 35]

People wouldn't mind it, including myself, provided Warfare mission gets the same support including bug-fixes, team balancing, and then there's the co-op crowd that will demand similar attention.

truthfully I don't mind dayz too... but I fully admit that I am scared one thing will lead to the next and arma will end up being totally changed. I am probably just paranoid though.

[Mr.Wolf 10]

Oh really? my bad! Hallelujah! Thank the heavens! I though I read on armaholic it would be though... I am going to go and check again. If you are right I take back what I said.

It was misinterpreted by kotaku:

http://kotaku.com/5910279/pc-zombie-darling-causes-sale-explosion-arma-devs-happy-to-help

Španěl said "We're more than happy to assist DayZ in any suitable way and considering the mod's popularity we are committed to do some related work in the next Arma 2 update (1.61).", and they interpreted it as "Španěl says that the developer is actually accommodating DayZ in ArmA II's next update."

Even Karel Mořický mentioned on twitter it is not true:

https://twitter.com/KarelMoricky/status/202494817207455745

[Nicholas 5]

Armaholic misread it as well. Marek said they will accommodate DayZ in the next patch. Accommodate does not mean include!!

Accommodate - Fit in with the wishes or needs of