What is the future of this franchise?

[Maio 293]

Re: "the community" -- there's a reason that DayZ kicked off when so many other zombie mods didn't even make a blip on the radar...

naizarak has a pretty sound point about the reason for the franchise's popularity ceiling -- it being milsim alone is enough to limit how much the franchise will sell (without DayZ that is) so BI shouldn't be actively limiting its potential even further through unforced errors... you know, even though the fact that they're making a game with an inherent popularity ceiling basically limits their competition and thus alternatives for people who want even harder sim. :p

Well... I partially agree with your last point. I think the fact that ArmA is marketed as a "milsim" has some impact on it's sales, however the main reason why it still has the "niche" status is... marketing budget and the fact that it's not developed for consoles with it's main MP focus set on PVP.

Even if you take the console part out of the equation you still need big cash for a big enough communication campaign, that or a dedicated developer who only handles promotion and put's out content with enough "bells and whistles" at a higher rate then BI is doing in order to grab mainstream attention.

ArmA is not a "milsim". It's not this highly complex tool designed specifically for accurate military operations. It's a sandbox, in which the military theme dominates. I wish BI would start marketing it that way. Make other features noticeable to the public , like the fact you can organize car races if you so wish or maybe that you can create your own scenarios in the editor... like a club house or your own costume designed FOB's or HQ's where you can hang before the actual missions start in MP.

[chortles 263]

Well... I partially agree with your last point. I think the fact that ArmA is marketed as a "milsim" has some impact on it's sales, however the main reason why it still has the "niche" status is... marketing budget and the fact that it's not developed for consoles with it's main MP focus set on PVP.

Whereas I believe the idea of a game being "hardcore" (as a prerequisite of the "milsim" theme) is what limits its popularity and potential... considering that AND considering the strength and association of the Arma brand with the idea of milsim, why would any other developer want to take the risk of hopping in on a niche market and competing with the established brand, especially when there isn't a "discontent" for such a would-be competitor to tap into like EA has to fuel BF3 with against COD?

ArmA is not a "milsim". It's not this highly complex tool designed specifically for accurate military operations.

Tell that to some of the fans thereof. :rolleyes:

You've got an interesting point about the marketing, but somehow I imagine that there's even less of a market for "making the player do the work". Then again, Cryptic and BI have both gotten away with this for some time because of captive audiences, and BI can't have the Star Trek license revoked... and as I told NielsS once, i didn't show up to the Arma franchise to do work, I showed up to play other people's work! :lol:

(It's pretty much like what I think re: shareholders for game-publishing corporations; game quality is a means to an end, that end being "lots of money for me, me, me", and lately there's a seeming major corporate habit of "milk the cow for all it's worth" and shareholder demand for ever-increasing short-term profits, not just revenues, no matter how unsustainable such a trend may be... very short-term thinking here.)

Alternately, for those who refer to regular shooters like COD as power fantasy... maybe just maybe some of its fans are buying it knowingly for that reason because they're okay with that?

[antoineflemming 14]

Cue the arguments over which weapons get locked behind which wall, much less whether or not attachments get locked behind such a "training" wall...So lower one's expectations and hold BI to a low standard? :p Kamov's pretty much got down pat what I think of the idea of liking the series so unconditionally... some people want a toolbox, some people want a working game where the devs did the work instead of the community.

Re: "the community" -- there's a reason that DayZ kicked off when so many other zombie mods didn't even make a blip on the radar...

naizarak has a pretty sound point about the reason for the franchise's popularity ceiling -- it being milsim alone is enough to limit how much the franchise will sell (without DayZ that is) so BI shouldn't be actively limiting its potential even further through unforced errors... you know, even though the fact that they're making a game with an inherent popularity ceiling basically limits their competition and thus alternatives for people who want even harder sim. :p

I didn't say unlocking attachments like COD or BF. DayZ was popular mainly because of zombies. If it were simply a survivor "simulator", I guarantee you it wouldn't have been popular.

As maionaze said, ArmA isn't a milsim. The community likes to think so, but it's not. ArmA's main problem isn't that it's a more realistic military game or that it markets itself as a milsim. It's that it needs a big publisher behind it to promote the game. BI isn't big enough to spend on advertisements what publishers like EA and Activision spend to promote their games. People need to make their own decisions on whether or not to play ArmA3, but that only comes after they've heard of ArmA. And, no, not everyone knows about the ArmA series. It needs current game development technologies to do the simple things that other games do, like motion-captured facial performance for example. AI needs to be self-sufficient, they need to be able to do pathfinding, they need to react like humans react, not like robots. Other games have this down. Players shouldn't have to micromanage AI. Needs to do better at it's campaign too (something to market on television, that shows it's a current generation game :p). It's got to have everything the big developers have. It can't seem like an out-of-date game. Now, I don't think it's terribly important that BIS increases the popularity of ArmA3. Certainly not for the masses, but I do think BIS should take advantage of the current state of the tactical shooter community. That community basically doesn't have a game. Ubisoft was king of that genre, but they've turned all those tactical shooters (which, by the way, are more realistic than COD or BF, but less realistic/sim-like that ArmA) into third-person cover shooters. ArmA2 is the closest thing those players have. So, I'd say if BIS can get the close quarters gameplay to work RIGHT, and then market that, then they could draw in a whole lot of players. Having a whole lot of players isn't important itself. Just enough that you have very few empty servers... While private servers are great, you don't want a server browser of only private servers.

[ProfTournesol 956]

The community likes to think so, but it's not.

The community is diverse, don't sum it up thanks. I never thought ArmA is a milsim, and a lot of people here neither.

[Kamov 1]

I didn't say unlocking attachments like COD or BF. DayZ was popular mainly because of zombies. If it were simply a survivor "simulator", I guarantee you it wouldn't have been popular.

As maionaze said, ArmA isn't a milsim. The community likes to think so, but it's not. ArmA's main problem isn't that it's a more realistic military game or that it markets itself as a milsim. It's that it needs a big publisher behind it to promote the game. BI isn't big enough to spend on advertisements what publishers like EA and Activision spend to promote their games. People need to make their own decisions on whether or not to play ArmA3, but that only comes after they've heard of ArmA. And, no, not everyone knows about the ArmA series. It needs current game development technologies to do the simple things that other games do, like motion-captured facial performance for example. AI needs to be self-sufficient, they need to be able to do pathfinding, they need to react like humans react, not like robots. Other games have this down. Players shouldn't have to micromanage AI. Needs to do better at it's campaign too (something to market on television, that shows it's a current generation game :p). It's got to have everything the big developers have. It can't seem like an out-of-date game. Now, I don't think it's terribly important that BIS increases the popularity of ArmA3. Certainly not for the masses, but I do think BIS should take advantage of the current state of the tactical shooter community. That community basically doesn't have a game. Ubisoft was king of that genre, but they've turned all those tactical shooters (which, by the way, are more realistic than COD or BF, but less realistic/sim-like that ArmA) into third-person cover shooters. ArmA2 is the closest thing those players have. So, I'd say if BIS can get the close quarters gameplay to work RIGHT, and then market that, then they could draw in a whole lot of players. Having a whole lot of players isn't important itself. Just enough that you have very few empty servers... While private servers are great, you don't want a server browser of only private servers.

The problem is that BI seems to have a lack of skilled programmers. (As I've observed and been told by many others.)

Would be amazing if AI thought for themselves instead of getting shot while running to position XY

[maturin 12]

Yeah, all those skilled CoD programmers learned how to create sentient AI long ago!

[Kamov 1]

Yeah, all those skilled CoD programmers learned how to create sentient AI long ago!

If you're responding to me, where did I ever mention Call of Duty? Is innovate not a word or something?

[PuFu 4600]

If you're responding to me, where did I ever mention Call of Duty? Is innovate not a word or something?

please tell me about some proper AI, in whatever game you want then...

[Kamov 1]

please tell me about some proper AI, in whatever game you want then...

Where AI behave like soldiers and think for themselves, the current AI require to much micromanagement in order to get them to do anything more advanced then form file(also difficult if you're in vehicles) or move to XYZ. Is innovation not a word or is copy cat a requirement?

[PuFu 4600]

Where AI behave like soldiers and think for themselves, the current AI require to much micromanagement in order to get them to do anything more advanced then form file(also difficult if you're in vehicles) or move to XYZ. Is innovation not a word or is copy cat a requirement?

You keep comparing different games with Arma franchise (mostly BF3), i though you had some AI that fits your taste in environment as big as arma. Innovation would work if you wouldn't be comparing apples with pies just as well...

[Kamov 1]

You keep comparing different games with Arma franchise (mostly BF3), i though you had some AI that fits your taste in environment as big as arma. Innovation would work if you wouldn't be comparing apples with pies just as well...

Where did I ever compare BF3 AI to ArmA AI? I only ever compared animations, CQB and movement.

[PuFu 4600]

Where did I ever compare BF3 AI to ArmA AI? I only ever compared animations, CQB and movement.

read that post of mine again. Please put down some proper AI that you feel it's worth comparing ArmA too, just like you have been doing with animation, CQB and movement. If there isn't anything out there, there might be reason for it.

[Kamov 1]

read that post of mine again. Please put down some proper AI that you feel it's worth comparing ArmA too, just like you have been doing with animation, CQB and movement. If there isn't anything out there, there might be reason for it.

Because no game requires it other than ArmA.

[nodunit 397]

He's right, most games do not let you control AI, at best you take over that AI as an avatar that behaves the same way as the previous, spiritually inhabiting chess pieces as it were.

Thing is, AI doing their own thing under the command of a player can be a double bladed situation, it can be a boon and come back to cut you just as well if you aren't careful.

[maturin 12]

Where AI behave like soldiers and think for themselves, the current AI require to much micromanagement in order to get them to do anything more advanced then form file(also difficult if you're in vehicles) or move to XYZ. Is innovation not a word or is copy cat a requirement?

They already think for themselves and carry out complex tasks. It sounds like you're just bad at controlling them, and in need of a reality check on how AI works, especially in an environment of dire system resources scarcity. You can't 'innovate' away CPU load, or the endless unpredictability of 3D environments and tactical situations. In the end, everything is just code.

And if the AI actually "thought for itself" and mixed its own actions with interpretations of the player's intentions, more so than it already does, it would be impossible to use.

[Phantom Six 25]

They already think for themselves and carry out complex tasks. It sounds like you're just bad at controlling them, and in need of a reality check on how AI works, especially in an environment of dire system resources scarcity. You can't 'innovate' away CPU load, or the endless unpredictability of 3D environments and tactical situations. In the end, everything is just code.

And if the AI actually "thought for itself" and mixed its own actions with interpretations of the player's intentions, more so than it already does, it would be impossible to use.

Wasn't that where GRAW went wrong I hear? Where the AI just try to do their own things while listen to you at the same time and then ends up getting shot in the face like idiots? Well let's not talk about GRAW Ais or GRAW2, both games pissed me off with those. AI controlled by the players can be quite a hassle to be honest (its much nicer when you're using voice commands with VAC or GlovePie <love it>). From what I hear, they work best when you have a few stealth AIs recon the enemy out and then enemies are reported and spotted, then when you get your squad into firing range and have them line up for the shot undetected, they can do wonder. Of course the AI commanded under the AI with AI enhancement mods or scripts are much nicer without having to manage (ASR, ACE, UPSON, DAC, etc).

An AI that follows both your command and "think for itself" may not work so great. I'm not too big a fan on AI controlling either. Maybe you give a "move there", AI spots enemy, would it keep moving? Take cover on its on? Will it still keep in formation or would they scatter and go unorganized? It's a bit too unpredictable sometimes.

As for improving AI CQB, that would be pretty nice.

(maybe I shouldn't brought GRAW up, I really hated it for its so stupid AI. OGR AI was way better than those. Either they insta-headshot you but when you give them order they get themselves instakilled).

[antoineflemming 14]

They already think for themselves and carry out complex tasks. It sounds like you're just bad at controlling them, and in need of a reality check on how AI works, especially in an environment of dire system resources scarcity. You can't 'innovate' away CPU load, or the endless unpredictability of 3D environments and tactical situations. In the end, everything is just code.

And if the AI actually "thought for itself" and mixed its own actions with interpretations of the player's intentions, more so than it already does, it would be impossible to use.

I think in some ArmA3 interview, Jay Crowe said the AI were thinking "too much", so the devs were working on streamlining the AI in terms of the factors they take into consideration.

[ProfTournesol 956]

There's already a topic about AI : http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?133738-AI-Improvement

[chortles 263]

I didn't say unlocking attachments like COD or BF. DayZ was popular mainly because of zombies. If it were simply a survivor "simulator", I guarantee you it wouldn't have been popular.

I didn't say unlocking attachments like COD or BF either, not least since I don't agree with their unlock methods (grind, grind, grind). As far as DayZ, my opinion is that zombies is what got people to give it a chance... but then something else was what made it big while all the other prior post-apocalyptic/zombie Arma 2 mods before it languished within the community.

As maionaze said, ArmA isn't a milsim. The community likes to think so, but it's not.

Thank gosh for someone who gets this, though honestly I disagree about the "main problem"... in my opinion, "AAA game" level marketing would only help maximize its potential, not actually raise the ceiling.

Other games have this down.

If ever the Arma series comes to an end, this should be its epitaph. :lol:

Needs to do better at it's campaign too (something to market on television, that shows it's a current generation game :p). It's got to have everything the big developers have. It can't seem like an out-of-date game.

I believe "the community" (or rather what Mondkalb called the "old hardcores") call this "selling out"... thank gosh Jay Crowe and Ivan Buchta agreed with you here, but I really, really hope that the new Arma 3 project lead, Joris-Jan van 't Land, agrees with Jay and Ivan about this... heck, this is my primary criteria for "what do I think of Mr. Land"!

Now, I don't think it's terribly important that BIS increases the popularity of ArmA3. Certainly not for the masses, but I do think BIS should take advantage of the current state of the tactical shooter community. That community basically doesn't have a game. Ubisoft was king of that genre, but they've turned all those tactical shooters (which, by the way, are more realistic than COD or BF, but less realistic/sim-like that ArmA) into third-person cover shooters. ArmA2 is the closest thing those players have.

This is why I keep referring to the "old hardcores" as Arma's "captive audience"...

Just enough that you have very few empty servers... While private servers are great, you don't want a server browser of only private servers.

To paraphrase Tropic Thunder, about what happens to a game that goes all empty and/or private: "That ain't Call of Duty. You went BRINK, man. Never go BRINK."

I think in some ArmA3 interview, Jay Crowe said the AI were thinking "too much", so the devs were working on streamlining the AI in terms of the factors they take into consideration.

The specific situation was that during development of PMC, it was discovered that AI were basically judging every object (I imagine "at least everything in sight" if not everything in Zargabad) as cover, even if that wouldn't be realistic, i.e. it never occurs to a real-life soldier that grass might be cover -- concealment yes, cover no -- and I don't know if Arma AI was programmed to think of concealment separately from cover, and that this "overthinking the situation" was slowing down the AI's movement.

[iceman77 18]

Well a cheesy "unlock" feature (of any kind) isn't even necessary. All's that needs to be done is to make and add attachments to the weapons crate, so that players can choose attachments. It would also tidy up the crates. Instead of individual weapon types cluttering up the crate, you'd have a weapon_base (ie; M4_base, M16_base etc etc) for each type of weapon. You would simply grab a base_weapon and any attachments you want, that are available for that weapon.

[chortles 263]

Well a cheesy "unlock" feature (of any kind) isn't even necessary. All's that needs to be done is to make and add attachments to the weapons crate, so that players can choose attachments. It would also tidy up the crates. Instead of individual weapon types cluttering up the crate, you'd have a weapon_base (ie; M4_base, M16_base etc etc) for each type of weapon. You would simply grab a base_weapon and any attachments you want, that are available for that weapon.

Dude, last I saw (that is, in Gamescom videos from mid-August) what you described here is what's going on with Arma 3... so if you prefer this system, then you're in luck. :D

[mrbenis 10]

The future of the franchise isn't looking too good right about now. Why hasn't the alpha been released? The game looks playable enough based on 6+ month old video footage. If the alphas purpose is to get rid of bugs and stress test various MP functions then why not throw it out there already. How can you go public with gameplay footage and not be running alpha testing?

Is this thing we've been waiting a year for actually an alpha at all any more? Did Bohemia create some kind of magical new shading renderer and are reprogramming 30% of the game from the bottom up hence the entire years delay? Is the game being privately beta tested right now? Yeah ok if they wanted to tell us they would have already butttttt

I find it hard to believe the entire project has ground to a halt because two staff members (senior ones or otherwise) were arrested. Obligations towards the companies bank account would have kept the ball rolling.. oh no.. arma 3 is being dissected as part of the spying inquiry. It will probably never see the light of day in its current form.

[ProfTournesol 956]

The future of the franchise isn't looking too good right about now. Why hasn't the alpha been released? The game looks playable enough based on 6+ month old video footage. If the alphas purpose is to get rid of bugs and stress test various MP functions then why not throw it out there already. How can you go public with gameplay footage and not be running alpha testing?

Is this thing we've been waiting a year for actually an alpha at all any more? Did Bohemia create some kind of magical new shading renderer and are reprogramming 30% of the game from the bottom up hence the entire years delay? Is the game being privately beta tested right now? Yeah ok if they wanted to tell us they would have already butttttt

I find it hard to believe the entire project has ground to a halt because two staff members (senior ones or otherwise) were arrested. Obligations towards the companies bank account would have kept the ball rolling.. oh no.. arma 3 is being dissected as part of the spying inquiry. It will probably never see the light of day in its current form.

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?143953-Happy-Holidays!&p=2271610&viewfull=1#post2271610

[CameronMcDonald 146]

The future of the franchise isn't looking too good right about now. Why hasn't the alpha been released? The game looks playable enough based on 6+ month old video footage. If the alphas purpose is to get rid of bugs and stress test various MP functions then why not throw it out there already. How can you go public with gameplay footage and not be running alpha testing?

Is this thing we've been waiting a year for actually an alpha at all any more? Did Bohemia create some kind of magical new shading renderer and are reprogramming 30% of the game from the bottom up hence the entire years delay? Is the game being privately beta tested right now? Yeah ok if they wanted to tell us they would have already butttttt

I find it hard to believe the entire project has ground to a halt because two staff members (senior ones or otherwise) were arrested. Obligations towards the companies bank account would have kept the ball rolling.. oh no.. arma 3 is being dissected as part of the spying inquiry. It will probably never see the light of day in its current form.

Holy wild conjecture, Batman.

[iceman77 18]

The future of the franchise isn't looking too good right about now. Why hasn't the alpha been released? The game looks playable enough based on 6+ month old video footage. If the alphas purpose is to get rid of bugs and stress test various MP functions then why not throw it out there already. How can you go public with gameplay footage and not be running alpha testing?

Is this thing we've been waiting a year for actually an alpha at all any more? Did Bohemia create some kind of magical new shading renderer and are reprogramming 30% of the game from the bottom up hence the entire years delay? Is the game being privately beta tested right now? Yeah ok if they wanted to tell us they would have already butttttt

I find it hard to believe the entire project has ground to a halt because two staff members (senior ones or otherwise) were arrested. Obligations towards the companies bank account would have kept the ball rolling.. oh no.. arma 3 is being dissected as part of the spying inquiry. It will probably never see the light of day in its current form.

I'm not so sure the development has been halted. Personally, I could care less about the alpha at this point in time. I'm sure BI will come through when it's all said & done. That's one thing I could always count on this far, BI doing things on an even keel for the last decade+.