How many will play ArmA 3 solely for its realism?

[Hillsbills 1]

PVP is what draws the crowds to those other games. You'd be hard pressed to draw those kind of numbers into an ARMA PVP match because it requires so much more than your standard shoot em up, half would quit on the drive to the AO. The game itself is capable, the majority of gamers are not.

[JCDBionicman 1]

PVP is what draws the crowds to those other games. You'd be hard pressed to draw those kind of numbers into an ARMA PVP match because it requires so much more than your standard shoot em up, half would quit on the drive to the AO. The game itself is capable, the majority of gamers are not.

I disagree. PVP fails because there is no sense of direction. The game itself isn't terribly hard to learn, it's just that when somebody joins a Warfare game, they have no idea what to do, and rightly so. What it should have been was a Human player focused gamemode where squad leaders are leading squads and buying vehicles and equipment for their human subordinates while human commanders are in turn leading them and building and enforcing bases for them to use. The way it is now, people are lost when they first join a Warfare server because they're struggling with the AI, and all of the boring stillness and inconsequential chaos that's going on around them. Ultimately they give up and probably don't come back.

[Hillsbills 1]

Warfare is nearly an RTS, granted it would be fun in PVP but it's hardly a comparison to BF and other series.

[tonygrunt 10]

I disagree. PVP fails because there is no sense of direction. The game itself isn't terribly hard to learn, it's just that when somebody joins a Warfare game, they have no idea what to do, and rightly so. What it should have been was a Human player focused gamemode where squad leaders are leading squads and buying vehicles and equipment for their human subordinates while human commanders are in turn leading them and building and enforcing bases for them to use. The way it is now, people are lost when they first join a Warfare server because they're struggling with the AI, and all of the boring stillness and inconsequential chaos that's going on around them. Ultimately they give up and probably don't come back.

So your problem is that there isn't a human player(squad leader) forced to explain to every new player and hold their hands in the game. I assume a squad leader doesn't have anything better to do than to explain the game to someone that possibly will be gone after five minutes.

And what if the new people have to struggle with asshole squad leaders? Wouldn't they give up?

[max power 21]

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.

Now, you see, your main point is that ArmA 2 is a failure because it doesn't measure up to 1 game's continued popularity. This is patently absurd, and no, your characterization of my point was not accurate. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by both sp and mp suck equally based on your observation of mp- which *I assume* is some kind of inadequate gesture at gathering a large sample therefore being objective. What I was saying was that: a) the game is old and is doing well compared to other old games and b) you are comparing apples to oranges. I hope that helps.

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.

You need to define what success is. If your idea of success is what people are playing 10 years after the fact then OK. I think normally you define the success of a business venture based on sales, though. We can comfortably disagree on what you think success is.

[Zionist_Wabbit 1]

Without wanting to hurt my mind by reading the enraged comment's posted afore this, I want to say that: Yes. I will be playing ArmA: III, yet that doesn't mean I'm playing just for the realism - I'd also like to say that no game has, or will ever come close to Real-Life Warfare. With the advent of no-pressure-Gameplay, which stems from the ability to either; Respawn, or leave the Game entirely, People take risk's and move about their Gaming experience in such a way that if this was Real-Life, they wouldn't last a moment on the Battlefield, let alone be able to cope with the pressures & emotions that come with that. I hate using 'Realism' as a term, rather 'Real-esk Simulation' - I will be playing it because I enjoy it, as I have with the older Bohemia Int. Games. Yes, I enjoy the varied attempts to create situations that mirror real-life instances, that doesn't mean I'm willing to spend $-- for it. If you were to buy a Game solely for that, other then your genuinely enjoying it, I do feel the Developer's have slightly missed-the-mark (And I'm sure, to some extent, the Developer's them-self could agree with that).

TL;DR: Yes. I'm buying it. No. I'm not buying it solely for the attempt's to make it as Realistic as possible.

[EvenLease 11]

Since you seem to like realistic games, why not invest in a commercial copy of VBS2? A hundred bucks (or two if I'm not remembering correctly), but you'll be set for life won't you?

People don't play video games for their realism. Certain exceptions to "realism" will have to be made in ArmA 3, just like in ArmA 2, if the developers want to make the game actually fun to play to the majority of PC gamers. Proof is in that, for example, you can switch out optics on guns on the fly in ArmA 3 while in real life you would have to carefully zero the optic at a firing range before doing so.

Another example would be dealing with injured. In ArmA 2 (and probably 3) you simply treat the soldier, and while this can sometimes be lengthy, regardless of the severity of his wounds he will be able to still fight, and at full capacity once he recovers after some time. While this is unrealistic it's necessary so that games can be wrapped up in a reasonable amount of time, and still it's a lot more complex and cumbersome to gameplay than "hide behind cover" or "magical healthpack." No player wants to wait something like an hour to get back into the fight, and no sane person should for the sake of a video game.

Can you see how certain sacrifices should be made for the sake of it being a video game? I believe a simulation nears reality, but does not mimic it completely. It sort of tries to create metaphorically accurate substitutes for things that players of the simulation simply wouldn't normally have the luxury of taking the time to deal with. In a flight simulator for example, the time for checking the plane for takeoff can be long, as in hours. Also, if the plane needs repairs or something, that can take days. So while the simulation of medical practices may not be perfectly accurate, It's reasonably accurate as far as in how it tries to create a somewhat believable atmosphere of realism while still being playable to the consumer.

Excuse me, but I DO play games for realism. Most unrealistic games get boring very quickly for me.

I know ArmA 3 probably wont be ultra realistic, but it'll be a good start for mods to come in and get it pretty damn close.

I play ACE2 on Combined Ops daily, online and off. I don't mind hiking half way across a map just to see only a couple enemy targets in the mountains or towns. I've done it, and I'll continue to do it. I also don't mind getting shot and killed within one bullet, if I made a mistake then I probably deserved it.

I do like realistic games, and I do like playing them. So don't tell me, or anyone else what they like.

Now, go play a different game if you dont like realistic games. Like this one. Stop trying to ruin other peoples fun because you cant handle REALISM.

[dm 9]

Now, you see, your main point is that ArmA 2 is a failure because it doesn't measure up to 1 game's continued popularity.

I think his point is "ArmA doesn't do what I want it to do out of the box, and therefore it is a failure as a game."

It is a typical reqeust from that type of PvP player, that wants cookie-cutter BattleField style "64 people in a shoebox for instant gratification" missions included with the game, so that he can get his frag on without expending any effort.

[Tonci87 163]

One Reason I play Arma is because of its realism. Even without mods it is still the most realistic and versatile FPS out there. I play with ACE; ASR_AI; TPWCAS; JSRS 1.5 and other mods to increase the realism level.

I like realism in games, therefore I also like DCS and Silent Hunter 5 (with lots of mods). Casual FPS always leve me with a "come on, no way that this is going to work IRL" feeling. But I guess that´s part of (almost) beeing an engineer, I always analyse things and think about how this would work IRL ^^

Saying that no one plays SP in Arma is ridiculous. I know of many people who play SP, we have a huge number of SP scenarios and campaigns on Armaholic and I can safely say that I played far more SP than MP although I am an active MP player.

On the low MP numbers:

The game is at the end of it´s life cycle, so this has to be expected. Playing on public Servers is a BIG mistake (seriously don´t do it)

It´s more fun if you have a organized squad you spend time with. You´ll find yourself not only playing with them, but also just chatting in TS, or even meeting IRL.

[down8 30]

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.

.

For the record I love ARMA 2 singleplayer, I almost only play SP. There are so many great SP campaigns and missions is scary. Give them a try and change your mind.

I know ARMA 2 is not perfectly realistic, but I play it because its immersion is much better than the other shooters in the market, and for me the kind of challenge and atmosphere generated its funnier. Another advantage is the variety of scenarios you can enjoy in this game, and community missions and mods. So the answer is I like the added realism compared to other games, but I don't play it solely for this reason, it has many other virtues.

It's funny you say that the key of the success for ARMA 3 is to get close to the other mainstream shooters when, the most succesfull moment of the previous titles has been a hardcore and unforgiving (in alpha state) survival PVP mod in the whole huge map (DayZ). I think this prove that many people doesn't know that they will enjoy a tough, more realistic than the others and hadcore game, until they taste it. They only need the hook (like zombies or fashion).

Edited January 17, 2013 by Down8

[PuFu 4599]

@JCDBionicman:

regarding your comparison with BF2.

1. EA game is designed for MP. IRC, there isn't any SP campaign, or any sort of SP scenarious that you can play. SO it is a MP focused game. On the other hand ArmA2 isn't. It is a game that is MP enabled (to follow max's line of thought). If you want, it is a game focused on the editor, that allows you to do MP and SP scenarious just the same. You could compare it to CS 1.6 just as well, i am sure you can find more 32player CS servers tha BF2 anyways.

2. I can run BF2 on my oldest laptop i own - 6 years - more than decent. I can't even start A2 on it.

3. All those generic shooters aim for the common denominator in their target group. You will have a lot more players in the next iteration of COD, than you will ever have in A3, no matter how polished, bug free and polished it is. Extrapolating, even if both games would have the exact same amount of players who bought the game and are enjoying it, the MP crowd for a COD type of game will be way larger than for A3. I think the fraction that buys COD for the SP campaign is way way less than the crowd that buys A3 to play in the editor or SP, or just to create content and/or scenarious.

Regarding A2 focus:

Arma is a SDK. It is more than a game in other words. It is not focused on neither for a good reason: you can choose for yourself what sort of game you want A2 to turn into, instead of being spoon fed like with the majority of other titles.

Regarding the poll.

Sort of stupid to ask someone if he plays a game solely for a part of a product (in your case "solely for realism"). No one does that, there are many more reasons besides it. But one of the main ones could be that, yes.

to conclude: i am really not sure what you are trying to point out?

Edited January 17, 2013 by PuFu

[EDcase 87]

What makes ARMA so good is that it CAN NOT be categorized.

It can do all the things and modes in all weathers and times!

The AI do have moments of 'brain fart' but I've also been amazed how human they act.

...And they do NOT do the same things each time unless scripted to do so.

I do hope the editor is more versatile so that scripting is not (as) necessary.

(ie. more modules that can be modified in the editor with parameters)

Edited January 17, 2013 by EDcase

[RoyTF91 1]

Well, It has an amazing campaign with good voice acting and memorable music. The best part is the story though. You follow a squad of inexperienced and naive soldiers during the cold war who gets their world turned upside down when a rouge russian general tries to force world war 3. It manages to create a sense of mystery about the entire situation and later panic as you realize you are figthing a loosing battle. Its epic and personal at the same time, a true classic

Sorry for late reply, hope you still see this.

A campaign like that does indeed sound epic and memorable, however I do disagree with you that charm can come only from a campaign. Not that a campaign makes or breaks a game, however I have found that games which are open world or sandbox type, such as ArmA have charm out the ass. Being able to mold the game to suit exactly your needs, obviously within the constraints and limits of the engine, but whatever is within those limits is 100% open game and up to you, that is the selling point. ArmA 3 will no doubt do the same, simply because of the nature of the game, the backing of the community, and the endless possibilities that the game itself present to the player.

On the story note though, I personally feel they are too scripted even in a game like ArmA. Again, I can't judge OFP since I never touched it, but ArmA 1 and 2 have pretty meh stories. I find that the campaigns and operations thrown together by the community, especially the PvP scenarios leave a much longer lasting and memorable experience. Being able to completely 180 the situation on a second's notice because of that human factor, mixed with the glitches and everything else that makes ArmA ArmA, I think the game has plenty of charm. ;)

[Cyper 18]

if the developers want to make the game actually fun to play to the majority of PC gamers

The majority, the mainstream, should go and play another game then. These filthy people have already ruined many great games with their selfish demands. There is something called genre. Certain games aim for certain audiences. If Arma isn't enjoyable for the mainstream audience because it is to 'realistic', then these people should realize that it isn't something wrong with the game: its just that they don't prefer that type of games. The majority have no right to crush the minority who do enjoy them.

No wonder why there is a fatigue in the gaming industry.

And what makes arma fun to play is not solely based on realism, I believe. There are many factors that contribute to it not just realism.

Edited January 17, 2013 by Cyper

[Tonci87 163]

The majority, the mainstream, should go and play another game then. These filthy people have already ruined many great games with their selfish demands. There is something called genre. Certain games aim for certain audiences. If Arma isn't enjoyable for the mainstream audience because it is to 'realistic', then these people should realize that it isn't something wrong with the game: its just that they don't prefer that type of games. The majority have no right to crush the minority who do enjoy them.

No wonder why there is a fatigue in the gaming industry.

And what makes arma fun to play is not solely based on realism, I believe. There are many factors that contribute to it not just realism.

Well said.

Although I think that many more people would be willing to enjoy Arma (I think that DAYZ has proven that there are a LOT of people who enjoy a proper challenge) if BIS does a few things:

Good (mostly) bug free game on release to get good reviews so that people get interested into the game (For gods sake don´t mess up again, improve the driving AI!)

A good bogree campaign with a great storyline to catch peopels interest. (MP games get forgotten over time as the people move on to the next one, but a well told story is there to last forever! (That´s why many people love the OFP campaigns))

Better Explanation/help for newcomers, more accessibility for them (this is not the same as dumbing down the game!)

[NoRailgunner 0]

Different games for different expectations and needs.... variety is the spice of gaming not the amount of hype, popularity, ratings or uniformity. :)

[metalcraze 290]

@JCDBionicman:

[...]

to conclude: i am really not sure what you are trying to point out?

ArmA, why u no play like BF?

[chortles 263]

I think the fraction that buys COD for the SP campaign is way way less than the crowd that buys A3 to play in the editor or SP, or just to create content and/or scenarious.

Funny story here: I once paid $25-$30 on release day for play time at a gaming cafe -- long enough to clear the MW3 campaign, then I never looked back. :D

Arma is a SDK. It is more than a game in other words. It is not focused on neither for a good reason: you can choose for yourself what sort of game you want A2 to turn into, instead of being spoon fed like with the majority of other titles.

Count me as one of those who doesn't play Arma solely for realism -- the Editor is a better reason. ;)

Though, it would be nice if there were $50 worth of developer-made missions in the release build this time around... emphasis on "worth"... and the Editor being but a bonus. I don't buy games to do more work... :p

[PuFu 4599]

Funny story here: I once paid $25-$30 on release day for play time at a gaming cafe -- long enough to clear the MW3 campaign, then I never looked back. :DCount me as one of those who doesn't play Arma solely for realism -- the Editor is a better reason. ;)

That said, you never bought it ;)

Though, it would be nice if there were $50 worth of developer-made missions in the release build this time around... emphasis on "worth"... and the Editor being but a bonus. I don't buy games to do more work... :p

So the price would be 100$...not many will jump on it then

[chortles 263]

That said, you never bought it ;)

But I did that on release day... it beat having to wait until summer or winter 2012 for a Steam sale. :p

So the price would be 100$...not many will jump on it then

Admittedly I certainly wouldn't! Then again, my attitude towards Arma 3 lately has become "I'd rather pay for a game than a SDK"... and even in Arma 2 I end up just playing existing missions.

[JCDBionicman 1]

Nobody buys ArmA 2 for it's editor, they buy it for the promise of being a unique and open first person shooter.

Edited January 18, 2013 by JCDBionicman

[max power 21]

Nobody buys ArmA 2 for it's editor, they buy it for the promise of being a unique and open first person shooter.

LOL!

[JCDBionicman 1]

LOL!

You couldn't possibly be serious.

Wow, I guess you are.

Furthermore, nobody should buy a game for it's modding capabilities. People should buy video games that have rich, original, varied content. I also agree that it's stupid for developers to not release their source code since it doesn't benefit anybody to do so, but that's beside the point. If you want art, buy a painting. If you want to draw a painting, buy a paintbrush.

Edited January 18, 2013 by JCDBionicman

[max power 21]

You couldn't possibly be serious.

Wow, I guess you are.

LOLOL! You just heard several people say they buy it at least in part because of the editor. Your poll also indicates that the majority of the people will buy ArmA 3 exclusively for the realism. Are you even reading this thread? The uniqueness and openness of the game is in no small way directly attributed to the editor. I have no idea what you're even arguing anymore.

---------- Post added at 20:03 ---------- Previous post was at 19:48 ----------

Furthermore, nobody should buy a game for it's modding capabilities. People should buy video games that have rich, original, varied content. I also agree that it's stupid for developers to not release their source code since it doesn't benefit anybody to do so, but that's beside the point. If you want art, buy a painting. If you want to draw a painting, buy a paintbrush.

I really doubt anyone here cares what you think they should like.

[JCDBionicman 1]

I'll just ignore the flamebaiting.

I was referring to the fact that the maps are large and the options for gameplay in ArmA 2 are many. If editors are what people want, there are games that do it so much better.

You also seem to be implying that it is okay for ArmA 2 to lack content as long as it includes an editor, which maybe a few people believe but, it's generally not a good practice as a game designer to throw responsibility onto modders that should be their own. Also, for people that want just development tools, there are much better options than ArmA 2. Word of developers is that "most people don't bother to learn the editor" which I don't blame them for, when one plays a video game the idea is to experience content made by the developers, not to create a game all by yourself.

Edited January 18, 2013 by JCDBionicman