How many will play ArmA 3 solely for its realism?

[cotton 1]

I am in for 80% realism 20% accessibility. when i make a mission, i give options to spawn on hq; squad leader; or halo... this isnt exactly realistic but it keeps the pace. As far as PVP, I am currently working on PVP missions in arma 2 and keep a solid focus on PVP missions. I believe the things that hinder PVP are; poor animations and poor IK which lead to poor character control. The comeback I see on these forums is that the character control is great and/or realistic.... when I have gear on and am holding my weapon system (in real life), I have no trouble moving about and do not feel clumsy. character control should be as dynamic and fluid as it is in real life and should not need to be a conscious effort.

If anyone is interested in PVP I will be testing a couple of missions soon so pm me.

[chrisb 196]

For me, it falls between the two, game and sim.

It does simulate war very well, even though it carries a game label. Missions can be made, then played, to a 'sim like' level.

O.k. it may not simulate individual pieces of war, such as aircraft, armour, infantry etc, but the whole aspect of war, from the huge battlefield wars of the past, to the terrorist wars of the present and everything in-between.

So if you want a game that is just that ‘a game’, it can be and is. If you want something for your pc that simulates ‘War’, then this is the only thing available, within a decent price range. Its as near as you'll get to a sim, dependant upon yourself and your skills for making missions and also the way you play-out those missions.

Thanks to the 'Editor':D, we can play it however we want, endlessly:).

I hope Arma 3 is the same, for that reason I voted.

This ‘Poll’ really is in the wrong forum..

[SavageCDN 231]

IMO Arma is what you make of it. Saying that COOP is repetitive and boring tells me you need to come play some good coop missions with us. To give you an idea of how dynamic it can be, even I as the mission maker can be surprised by what the AI does during a session.

Yes you need to add mods to make this happen.

[iceman77 18]

Phew... Long read. Anyhow, from reading, apparently you're fairly new to the series. I don't understand how you can make such remarks/statements then. For example, bringing up TDM in Arma... LOL. The only people who actually play a TDM are people who come over from COD/BF and don't know any better. Anyhow, you seem to like BF style games. Which is fine. But, you clearly weren't around in A1, when we had a population who liked pure pvp. There was this game mode known as Berzerk. It was identical to BF conquest mode, except on steroids, because you weren't limited on where you could go, and obviously the games realism itself compared to BF. There would be plenty of servers with 40+. Sometimes over 100 participants in a given server, all playing c&h (conquest mode).

Take a look here to see the Berzerk UI, layout. Anyhow, point being, the game is what you make it. If a person wants to play "BF" in Arma then that's achievable. That's why the game is so good, and why I'll always play it. It's not linear, the gameplay itself or the modability.

[nodunit 397]

I disagree that Arma should be pvp focused, or even coop focused..to focus on merely one aspect of possibly gameplay, is a travesty upon what the engine is capable of. In fact I hope to seee some game modes taking advantage of the new physX with something a bit more silly. I wouldn't necessarily say the the community does do a bit of the devs job due to the community seeing the game in a different light... You see, Arma 2 was never meant to hold similarities to other shooters, much less famous ones, that wasn't even on the radar.

Now BI say they are trying to attract more people, that doesn't necessarily mean that they want to compete with obviously unbeatable foes. They just want to make the game accessible for those that liked it but found there were some oddities that got in their way (animation system being a prime example, pvp players not liking the response time for action to reaction)

When it comes to online game play, Arma 2 came out of the box with pvp, coop, team death match, ctf and a few others.. the biggest problem online play has is the engines greatest strength, it's accessibility. When people are able to hack and gain admin rights then something is dreadfully wrong, add in people who can't be bothered to practice anything before going into multiplayer and asshats, you got yourself a recipe for seclusive sectors wherein most people will flock to locked servers.

It's a vicious cycle and one I see pop up so very often, "The best experiences are with clan or locked servers" , this doesn't promote public play.. to overcome this the developers need to add some kind of lockdown feature, until they do that, private servers are likely to be the dominating form of most gameplays.

Edited January 16, 2013 by NodUnit

[JCDBionicman 1]

That's a massive claim to make. You may fail to see it as a "thing," but the popularity of CTI scenarios, for example, that you yourself deadpan prove you wrong. For the reasons I listed previously, large scale, pick-up-put-down co-ops are the mainstay of MP, DayZ aside, of course.

Another huge claim. Each playthrough in SP is different depending on what the AI do. The same thing occurs in MP. Anyone who claims the AI mostly do the same thing over and over again is pretty much wrong - they give an unprecedented level of replayability versus pretty much every other FPS out there.

I wholly agree - I am stating that in ArmA 2, however, you are best off doing the two points listed above, because there are no popular BF3-esque scenarios in A2. Even if these scenarios were made, I'd find it hard to believe that they would dent the popularity of the large scale co-op.

Your OP can be boiled down to these two requests:

- A robust number of engaging MP PVP missions in the initial release.

- More accessible editor.

BI has hired Celery, renowned for his MP work, so hopefully the first is a go. The second, well, we'll have to see. I sincerely hope functionality isn't sacrificed in the name of accessibility, however.

I still predict that a game mode looking a whole lot like Domination will reign supreme as far as ArmA 3 public MP goes.

Coop may be the core of ArmA 2, but one must also consider there aren't very many people playing ArmA 2 in the first place. Multiplayer is largely unpopulated. As such, I think we can come to the conclusion that there is something fundamentally wrong with multiplayer. There are underrated games that a small majority play, then there are obscure games that even fewer people know exist. ArmA is in the latter category. I believe that if a game falls into such a category, it generally deserves to be, being that I've purchased more than a few of those kinds of games by now.

Furthermore, Coop will never be as engaging as PVP, because AI will never be as dynamic as Human players. It doesn't matter how big the map is, the AI will react to a same scenario in a same way. The exception is when you have multiple user missions to choose from, because then at least there is something unique about each session. Again, even though domination utilizes the entire map, each playthrough will be very similar because it's being played on the same map with the same parameters. If you give the AI the same scenario over and over, they will react in a similar way over and over.

"BF3-esque" scenarios WOULD be popular if they were given official support. The proof is in Battlefield itself, and in the repeated demands of the community. Didn't you just admit that DayZ was the only thing more popular than coop in ArmA 2? Being that DayZ is PVP focused, and immensely popular more than any of the vanilla or other stuffs aside, I think that also helps my point.

I think we're generally agreeing on everything else though.

Edited January 16, 2013 by JCDBionicman

[pathetic_berserker 4]

I voted yes, not because it is strictly true but it is the closer statment to why I play ArmA. The ArmA franchise for me is all about scope, over the years I've played great SP,Co-OP, and all the PvP game modes you can think of with ArmA. It seems to me the OP has incorrectly connected the current trend in ArmA MP servers with what ArmA is. But then how can you blame him with all the elitists still claiming that TDM isn't for ArmA. There is no fault with the game in this regard.

Edited January 16, 2013 by Pathetic_Berserker

[max power 21]

I believe, with the wording of the quiz, he was going for 'strictly true' vs. 'it's a grey area'.

I have changed the name of the thread to reflect the name of the quiz.

---------- Post added at 15:52 ---------- Previous post was at 15:48 ----------

Coop may be the core of ArmA 2, but one must also consider there aren't very many people playing ArmA 2 in the first place. Multiplayer is largely unpopulated. As such, I think we can come to the conclusion that there is something fundamentally wrong with multiplayer.

I think when one is considering the state of multiplayer for ArmA 2, one must realize the game has been out since 2009. At one time multiplayer was quite active, and there were people posting online analytics to express their surprise. Right now, this game as it the and of its life cycle and well beyond the peak in its popularity.

[metalcraze 290]

@OP

I have both ArmA2 and VBS2 now and with ACE2 mod there are things that VBS2 lacks (ACE2 wounding system for example that makes medics matter and interesting to play - oh and it's more realistic)

And ArmA3 would greatly benefit from some VBS2 gameplay stuff. You say that "oh duh realism no fun for the majority of PC gamers" but a) who cares about the majority? And b) for example in ArmA series when you are shot in the leg you are forced to crawl which, unless there's some way to fix yourself, means it's reloading/restarting the mission - while in VBS2 being shot in the leg will merely make you walk slowly with a wounded leg and you will still be able to shoot on the move although not as precisely. Now if you will fall and break your legs - you will crawl. That's already much better than ArmA2 eh?

Another comparison - in ArmA2 your aim will constantly twitch even when you hold breath which merely lowers the twitching.

In VBS2 when you hold breath it actually makes your aim steady for some time (depends on how tired you are) and when you don't - your weapon wavers along a predictable and realistic figure of 8

"Real" realism can be much better for gameplay than gamey stuff

ArmA cuts corners in all the wrong places. Like the lack of weapon resting - that VBS2 also lacks, but ACE2 has it. In ArmA/VBS you get weapon resting effects only when you are prone, ACE2 actually allows you to rest your weapon on any suitably high surface, like the front of a humvee for example.

Edited January 17, 2013 by metalcraze

[Flash Thunder 10]

No because its open world and gives me freedom to do whatever I choose to. That's why.

[pathetic_berserker 4]

Ah ,OK..... now I'm having trouble connecting the quiz with anything he said in his thread. To me ArmAs percieved realism, as a mechanic, is sort of seperate to mission selection and/or design, wich seems to be the core of the OP's gripe. At any rate this stuff has already been covered quite well in other threads.

Max Power has the truth of it. A2 is nearing the end of its life cycle, wich is why you see so few game types, and those that are on tend to require little admin overwatch.

Oh and the VBS2 thing is a bit silly. A2 is prettier, more accessible, and still has more players.

Edited January 17, 2013 by Pathetic_Berserker

[JCDBionicman 1]

I have changed the name of the thread to reflect the name of the quiz.

As for the poll, It was meant to ask about ArmA 3, not ArmA 2.

I would appreciate if you could perhaps change the name of the quiz instead.

---------- Post added at 02:43 ---------- Previous post was at 02:28 ----------

I think when one is considering the state of multiplayer for ArmA 2, one must realize the game has been out since 2009. At one time multiplayer was quite active, and there were people posting online analytics to express their surprise. Right now, this game as it the and of its life cycle and well beyond the peak in its popularity.

Sure that's a valid point, but one should also take into account some multiplayer enabled games entertain an online community years after their release. Battlefield 2 in particular has 700+ servers still, and that's from 2006. I see about 40+ CTI servers, half of them not really well populated in themselves. And ArmA 2 got put on shelves in stores, so it's not like the game failed just because it didn't have a proper budget for marketing.

[slatts 1978]

OFP still has players and came out in 2001

BF2 numbers can stuff it

[JCDBionicman 1]

OFP still has players and came out in 2001

BF2 numbers can stuff it

Not that I'm a fan of EA, or developers that are low enough to deal with them or to make us deal with them, but Battlefield is a fun game.

[max power 21]

I would appreciate if you could perhaps change the name of the quiz instead.

I can do that. I was really just eliminating some language and / or typos that made the question unclear but I can change it to change the question as well. Note that the change in question may have an impact on the results.

Sure that's a valid point, but one should also take into account some multiplayer enabled games entertain an online community years after their release. Battlefield 2 in particular has 700+ servers still, and that's from 2006. I see about 40+ CTI servers, half of them not really well populated in themselves. And ArmA 2 got put on shelves in stores, so it's not like the game failed just because it didn't have a proper budget for marketing.

I think that BF2 is not a multiplayer enabled game. It is a multiplayer focused game. And while we're cherry picking, Counter-Strike in its various flavours still seems to have quite a following as well. For the rest of the games ever released, ArmA 2 has had quite long legs.

[JCDBionicman 1]

I think that BF2 is not a multiplayer enabled game. It is a multiplayer focused game. And while we're cherry picking, Counter-Strike in its various flavours still seems to have quite a following as well. For the rest of the games ever released, ArmA 2 has had quite long legs.

I'm not sure what you mean.

[max power 21]

I guess my point lies in there difference between the definitions of the words 'enabled' and 'focused'.

[JCDBionicman 1]

I guess my point lies in there difference between the definitions of the words 'enabled' and 'focused'.

I think ArmA falls into the latter category, along with Battlefield. Playing the game's poor singleplayer campaign, it becomes quite clear that it was intended to be multiplayer focused. I'm going to also suggest that it doesn't actually matter whether a game that is multiplayer has singleplayer. COD and the new Battlefield games have singleplayer campaigns, but I would hope people would agree they are multiplayer focused.

Edited January 17, 2013 by JCDBionicman

[slatts 1978]

Not that I'm a fan of EA, or developers that are low enough to deal with them or to make us deal with them, but Battlefield is a fun game.

Indeed, I do enjoy it too. However BF and Arma(talking 2 and before now) have different player/audience markets. BF tends to be a lot more generic then Arma, which attracts more players and means player numbers remain years after.

Arma tends to a certain niche in the market, you said the game "failed". I would strongly disagree (gonna put that signature picture to good use :p ) If you take Arma target audience into account. A lot of them bought the game, enjoy/love/like it, and continue to play it after 3/4 years. Won a good few awards and received a lot of high praise

And a member(and those who helped, lets not forget) of that target audience helped bring in a whole new bunch to the game, some of which enjoy the non DayZ side.

So, all things considered, the game didn't fail.

[max power 21]

I think ArmA falls into the latter category, along with Battlefield. Playing the game's poor singleplayer campaign, it becomes quite clear that it was intended to be multiplayer focused. I'm going to also suggest that it doesn't actually matter whether a game that is multiplayer has singleplayer. COD and the new Battlefield games have singleplayer campaigns, but I would hope people would agree they are multiplayer focused.

The game has several official single player campaigns, a smattering of single player missions, and a handful at best of multiplayer missions, and you think it's MP 'focussed'. Interesting opinion.

[JCDBionicman 1]

Indeed, I do enjoy it too. However BF and Arma(talking 2 and before now) have different player/audience markets. BF tends to be a lot more generic then Arma, which attracts more players and means player numbers remain years after.

Arma tends to a certain niche in the market, you said the game "failed". I would strongly disagree (gonna put that signature picture to good use :p ) If you take Arma target audience into account. A lot of them bought the game, enjoy/love/like it, and continue to play it after 3/4 years. Won a good few awards and received a lot of high praise

And a member(and those who helped, lets not forget) of that target audience helped bring in a whole new bunch to the game, some of which enjoy the non DayZ side.

So, all things considered, the game didn't fail.

Yeah, the thing about awards, the people responsible for giving them out aren't always competent. Mass Effect for example is a boring third person shooter with absolutely no real RPG elements with regards to gameplay, which despite this is somehow rated one of the greatest RPGs of all time, and the soapbox riddled with plot holes and melodrama all combine to make a product that is 7/10 material. Despite this, it received high ratings all around including GOTY nominations.

[slatts 1978]

So you agree with the rest of what I said which was Arma 2 wasn't a fail? ;)

[JCDBionicman 1]

The game has several official single player campaigns, a smattering of single player missions, and a handful at best of multiplayer missions, and you think it's MP 'focussed'. Interesting opinion.

Your point is that ArmA 2's multiplayer has an excuse to be unpopulated because of it's failure due to it being a single and multiplayer game, rather than solely multiplayer focused yes? Saying this point was correct however, it wouldn't matter seeing as both ArmA 2's singleplayer and multiplayer suck equally. It's not focused on multiplayer or singleplayer. It's focused on handing everything over to the modding community and taking no responsibility for anything.

Again though, I'm going to suggest that there is no correlation between a multiplayer-only game's success vs a multiplayer-enabled game's success anyways.

---------- Post added at 05:52 ---------- Previous post was at 05:48 ----------

So you agree with the rest of what I said which was Arma 2 wasn't a fail? ;)

Your only real point seemed to be that ArmA 2 had won awards and therefore didn't fail.

Edited January 17, 2013 by JCDBionicman

[slatts 1978]

Aaaah yes the true side of internet discussions raises it's ugly head once more. Ignore the rest of what I said and don't discuss it because you know you're outnumbered here.

You've just washed ashore (get it ;) ) with the rest and think you know everything about Arma and it's community. Arma is unique game with an extra unique community. It might take a while before you truly appreciate it. But if you ever do, you'll understand.

I look forward to it. I'm done here, peace.

[JCDBionicman 1]

Aaaah yes the true side of internet discussions raises it's ugly head once more. Ignore the rest of what I said and don't discuss it because you know you're outnumbered here.

You've just washed ashore (get it ;) ) with the rest and think you know everything about Arma and it's community. Arma is unique game with an extra unique community. It might take a while before you truly appreciate it. But if you ever do, you'll understand.

I look forward to it. I'm done here, peace.

Your other two points were; Battlefield is more attractive over ArmA 2 because it is bland and non unique, and ArmA 2 has a lot of players still even for being old. To the latter, I've already made it known that some older games are actually more multiplayer populated than ArmA 2. I found via an internet search that ArmA 2 has fewer than 200 servers while Battlefield has more than 700. That 200 figure is actually less and should be considered so since it's only so large if considering it's DayZ population. It's less than 40 with vanilla multiplayer. Regarding what you said about Battlefield, I think Battlefield is more attractive over ArmA because ArmA's multiplayer is poorly designed.

Edited January 17, 2013 by JCDBionicman