Official statement regarding accessibility?

[Cyper 18]

I have been thinking about starting a topic about this issue before but I for some reason I have never done that. DayZ is obviously a great a success. Not only as a mod, but as a success for BIS aswell, since the arma titles get more attention and BIS more money. I started playing Arma: combat operations back in 2010. I found out about Arma through Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising which I bought because it crossed my mind that I had been playing a game called Operation Flashpoint many years earlier when I was about twelve years old. It was a poor unofficial sequel, but as a game it had potential, but with Red River that potential was flushed down the toilet when 'accessibility' was written on the wall. I then re-played OFP:CWC during summer 2011 and its by far one of my favorite games. Ever.

A similar story with Dragon Rising/Red River era somehow repeated itself for me with the release of Red Orchestra: Heroes of Stalingrad. Then a similar story to RO2 repeated itself in the latest installment in the Hitman franchise - which I have been playing since the first game was released. Since the great release and success of DayZ, which more or less have taken over arma 2/AO MP, a thought have crossed my mind various times:

Will Arma become more accessible?

With accessible, I just don't mean enemy tags and magically red-glowing enemies, but changes to the core of the game. In an interview I read the following:

''It’s not a fundamentally different game, or anything, but weapon/player movement does feel a little more modern in terms of accessibility.''

More than that, I have not heard any official statement regarding this. Due to my past experiences with games mentioned above I do not, unfortunately, take for granted that my favorite titles will remain untouched by the filthy mainstream audience which collaborative ruin games.

I am indeed geniusly worried.

[Smurf 12]

''It’s not a fundamentally different game, or anything, but weapon/player movement does feel a little more modern in terms of accessibility.''

It could mean that you are now in control of something that resembles a human being, not a refrigerator with guns (or without, unarmed civilians are even worst to control) and better control scheme. Nothing to do with non sense type of movimentation a la COD or BF. ;)

Other then that, if feels something like a rant from ze....

[Pulverizer 1]

What worries you about the particular statement? It specifically says the gameplay will not change much.

Controls used to be even worse if you can imagine. They made them more "accessible and mainstream" with Arma2, and the game was only improved by it.

Also, get off your high horse. Stereotypes dictate that the hardcore gamer is more filthy than mainstream, not less.

[Tonci87 163]

If BIS is saying "accessibility" then they really mean "improved usability"

For example better character controls :)

[instagoat 133]

This has been discussed extensively on the floor and here at and after gamescom.

Summary: No, there will not be any change to the core gameplay. The main goal if you want to argue with semantics, is USABILITY not Accessibility. Easier to navigate menus, easier to navigate weapons, easier to use movement, more complex yet intuitive movement (incremental lean, popping up over obstacles.), no more robotic juggling around corners.

Interface changes will happen, but last word we got was that all major changes will be subject to scrutiny in the alpha when it rolls around. There are also multiple different key layout schemes that have not yet been demonstrated anywhere, which will be open to be tested by the players then. The simulation itself will get MORE complex. The details are in the confirmed features thread.

Source(s): Played the game at gamescom, talked to Gaia for a bit.

Edited January 17, 2013 by InstaGoat

[JCDBionicman 1]

geniusly

"A genius is someone who has exceptional intellectual ability"

- Internet

A genius could clearly gather from numerous developer interviews and demonstrations of ArmA 3 that the game is only increasing the amount of options given to the player.

Edited January 17, 2013 by JCDBionicman

[chortles 263]

With accessible, I just don't mean enemy tags and magically red-glowing enemies, but changes to the core of the game. In an interview I read the following:

''It’s not a fundamentally different game, or anything, but weapon/player movement does feel a little more modern in terms of accessibility.''

More than that, I have not heard any official statement regarding this. Due to my past experiences with games mentioned above I do not, unfortunately, take for granted that my favorite titles will remain untouched by the filthy mainstream audience which collaborative ruin games.

I am indeed geniusly worried.

Bluntly speaking, when Jay Crowe said "let's not be afraid of that word, 'streamlined'", he was probably thinking of complaints like yours. Have you even watched videos of the Gamescom build?

Example: The inventory menu now is divided into three overall sections: "stuff on the ground" takes up the left panel, weapons and certain gear (i.e. NVGs and helmet) take up the right, and your character's stowed inventory (whether on their person, on their armor/chest rig or in their worn backpack) takes up the middle... and movements between panels and tabs or subpanels is done using drag-and-drop... for example, you can now attach a suppressor to an assault rifle by selecting it from the "ground" panel or the appropriate "stowed inventory" panel, clicking/holding LMB on the suppressor and dragging/releasing it on one of the three attachment boxes underneath the assault rifle's subpanel (magazines take up the fourth box), no need to use an addon like ASC Weapons.

(EDIT: Underbarrel is an exception, as it is still not simulated, so for example you'll still have UGL variants of weapons -- for example, the MX 6.5 mm AR used in the E3/Gamescom builds had a Magpul AFG, while there was a MX-3GL variant as well.)

Likewise, there's no sticky cover -- but there are incremental stance adjustments (as of Gamescom Ctrl+WSADQE) so that you can now lean or sidestep, or duck/peek-and-lift-the-weapon-further-up while crouching, or go into urban prone)... and bluntly speaking, the mouse acceleration/smoothing is more like a conventional shooter, but that's because this is the first Arma with a game engine that "understands" that CQB is a thing that happens :lol: Hell, the crosshairs now resembles a conventional shooter's, there's no more front side blade in the middle -- so no more "the crosshair is more pixel perfect than my optic's own reticle".

On the other hand, you also now have an encumbrance/fatigue mechanic -- more gear worn = quicker fatiguing, which affects sprint duration, accuracy and how long it takes for accuracy to recover. Still no regenerating health, you can still go down from one well-placed hit, there's actually wounding mechanics now (leg wounds can force you to crawl and arm wounds can mess up your accuracy)... but helmets and body armor now provide damage resistance instead of being cosmetic, while themselves contributing to said encumbrance/fatigue.

Edited January 17, 2013 by Chortles

[metalcraze 290]

On the other hand, you also now have an encumbrance/fatigue mechanic -- more gear worn = quicker fatiguing, which affects sprint duration, accuracy and how long it takes for accuracy to recover.

If it's anything like it is in VBS2 - it's going to be sweet. In VBS2 too much fatigue also leads to you barely being able to jog in the end.

[Cyper 18]

It could mean that you are now in control of something that resembles a human being, not a refrigerator with guns (or without, unarmed civilians are even worst to control) and better control scheme. Nothing to do with non sense type of movimentation a la COD or BF. ;)

Other then that, if feels something like a rant from ze....

http://1morecastle.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/pc_master_race.jpg

If you want to speak about something that resemblance to some sort of a ''master race'' then thats the people who wander to niche titles and demands them to become casualized.

I'm just afriad that things that I liked about previous games will be removed or drastically changed. For instance the old crosshair is gone. I even want exactly same crosshair as in OFP CWC. I wouldn't be surprised if the aiming became casualized. I trust BIS a lot, but after being betrayed by other developers such as TWI (they lied to me, took my money and I gave them my word) so i'm not sure about it anymore. On Wikipedia arma 3 is defined as a tactical shooters while arma 2 is defined as a sim. For instance, I hope smooth movement wont mean twitchshooting mechanics or quickaim like in RO2. I am aware that the community will give their feedback with the alpha, but problem for me is, that the outside elements also will give their feedback and maybe try to undermine the arma formula.

[waxman 5]

How many people have picked up Arma /2 / OA over the years only to walk away after a week of trying to play (some time the arma interface is unbelievably unapproachable) or bashing their heads against monitors when trying to connect to a server running a different mod or version of a mod. These are not the unwashed masses they are merely a little less masochistic or autistic than the rest of us (possibly have busier life's as well).

And then there are those borderline mundane folks that may like the idea and would enjoy the game as is perhaps not to the point of competitive play but still not any loss to have in the community that never pick it up due to bad press (for good reason).

The accessibility / usability issue also extends from in game UI and controls to mod delivery (steam workshop) and hopefully game launching automatically with correct settings for the server you are joining. All in all the same game made so I can enjoy playing not spending a Sunday trying to get invasion 1944 installed :(

[Winfernal 2]

What would BI gain from trying to casualize the game? And making it more like a shooter instead of a SIM?

There are two major companies competing about that already. EA and Activision. No one, in the near future, will ever capture those players.

BI makes games for a special group of players. Mil-simers. And making ArmA 3 less clunky and confusing, and more smooth and useable, is certainly not about casualising. It's about polishing the rough diamond that is ArmA. It's about getting those "worried" players into the warm ArmA community. ArmA isn't a game that you just jump in to. And lots of that is because of it being this clunky and frustrating. The UI isn't top notch either to say the least.

A game that is clunky, overly complicated and frustrating.. isn't hard, super-advanced or hardcore. It is unpolished and "unfinished". ArmA 3 might become the diamond that ArmA should've been from the start.

Also, mods. (ACE)

Edited March 4, 2013 by Winfernal

[pathetic_berserker 4]

Well they did say that ArmA 3 will lose none of the functionality of A2 so I supose in broad strokes there is nothing to worry about. What we will have to watch is the little differences. ArmA is a complex beast and there would be many small tweaks that could be made that when combined change the overal nature of the game.

Are they polishing the joints to make the engine more flexible and powerfull? Polishing the UI and graphics to make it easier to navigate? Or what some fear, polishing out sim like elements to make the game more casual?

There is a lack of detail presently about gameplay, particularly with regard to vehicles, that still leaves the last option open, unfortunately. And we still have to pay for the privilage to find out.

[johncage 30]

accessibility is a term that has been forever tarnished by bad game companies who use it to denote "easy and dumbed down", unfortunately now if a legit company wants to appropriate that term and use it in a more sensible manner, the connotation will always remain there. as jay crowe said, it has become a bad word.

i think there are terms that can replace it, and possibly find its way in the vernacular of legit game devs as well. intuitive is a good one because it presents the idea that things in the game behave as they roughly would in real life without triggering alarm bells. "realistic" as well, thought it's sort of a bad word to arcade gamers, but who gives a flying &$# about them anyway...my meaning is, you'll always exclude on group or another, so in marketing, exclude the ones you are unlikely to attract. dispense of words like "accessible", they seem only to annoy and confuse your target audience.

[dwaight 17]

what he said

[naizarak 4]

the game needs to be more accessible from a multiplayer standpoint. don't force players to join a clan or squad to get some quality multiplayer experiences.

[Winfernal 2]

the game needs to be more accessible from a multiplayer standpoint. don't force players to join a clan or squad to get some quality multiplayer experiences.

Uhhh. I disagree, strongly.

ArmA is about simulation of warfare. Lonewolfing shouldn't be viable. Running and gunning shouldn't be viable.

There are other games where those things are viable. In fact, there's PLENTY of them. Arcade games.

Edited March 5, 2013 by Winfernal

[naizarak 4]

Uhhh. I disagree, strongly.

ArmA is about simulation of warfare. Lonewolfing shouldn't be viable.

There are other games where lonewolfing is viable. Arcade games.

Thanks you just reminded me that the biggest hindrance to community growth is the community itself. I mean, it's not like there's "casual" players out there who want to play tactical Arma but don't wan't to commit to a private squad. Jeez how pretentious of me.

[Winfernal 2]

Thanks you just reminded me that the biggest hindrance to community growth is the community itself. I mean, it's not like there's "casual" players out there who want to play tactical Arma but don't wan't to commit to a private squad. Jeez how pretentious of me.

I've made plenty of gaming friends from joining "random" squads in ArmA. Using VOIP.

Yes, it's that easy. And i'm pretty casual myself.

[chortles 263]

If you want to speak about something that resemblance to some sort of a ''master race'' then thats the people who wander to niche titles and demands them to become casualized.

I'm just afriad that things that I liked about previous games will be removed or drastically changed. For instance the old crosshair is gone. I even want exactly same crosshair as in OFP CWC. I wouldn't be surprised if the aiming became casualized. I trust BIS a lot, but after being betrayed by other developers such as TWI (they lied to me, took my money and I gave them my word) so i'm not sure about it anymore. On Wikipedia arma 3 is defined as a tactical shooters while arma 2 is defined as a sim. For instance, I hope smooth movement wont mean twitchshooting mechanics or quickaim like in RO2. I am aware that the community will give their feedback with the alpha, but problem for me is, that the outside elements also will give their feedback and maybe try to undermine the arma formula.

While we have no official statement that's recent regarding "accessibility", as said, Jay and Ivan and Karel and I believe even Matt Lightfoot spent a bunch of time around E3 and Gamescom talking about what that means in the context of Arma 3... and

is probably a good example of what's meant by "accessibility according to BI" and "smooth movement" according-to-you.

As far as the crosshair though, the change was intentional and one of the devs explained that it was to actually eliminate the situation where the middle 'front sight' was so thin as to be more precise than one's actual iron sights... that's exactly why they got rid of the old crosshair.

the outside elements also will give their feedback and maybe try to undermine the arma formula.

Y'know, after Maruk said that the majority of Arma 2 players picked it up through Steam, you should have been aware that "the outside elements also will give their feedback"... and honestly? Ever since DayZ, BI has been listening to "the outside elements". If that somehow surprises you, I really, really do not sympathize with you about that. Edited March 5, 2013 by Chortles

[naizarak 4]

Last time I checked 99% of public arma servers were running either domination or insurgency. "Friending" up with people isn't gonna do much if we're stuck playing the same 2 boring game modes over and over.

So as I said before, finding any meaningful multiplayer is impossible outside of private clans and squads. The devs need to make things a little more accessible.

[Winfernal 2]

Last time I checked 99% of public arma servers were running either domination or insurgency. "Friending" up with people isn't gonna do much if we're stuck playing the same 2 boring game modes over and over.

So as I said before, finding any meaningful multiplayer is impossible outside of private clans and squads. The devs need to make things a little more accessible.

Oh. Well in that case, I agree. Might've been a misunderstanding there.

But the PvP will be improved in ArmA 3, most likely. As the game is less clunky, and more smooth now. But we will see!

[chortles 263]

Oh. Well in that case, I agree. Might've been a misunderstanding there.

But the PvP will be improved in ArmA 3, most likely. As the game is less clunky, and more smooth now. But we will see!

You know, it's probably not a coincidence that DayZ is the one "mission type" that made a phenomenon when nothing else before in Arma had... maybe that's because Rocket was the only mission maker in all these years who had a compelling idea besides "yet another 'milsim' mission"? And if you think that DayZ's mission concept is awful, then that's implying that everyone else's were even worse. :p

I don't see "the state of Arma 3 PVP" improving that much if that paucity of mission ideas continues in Arma 3, even if moving around the game world 'sucks' less.

[naizarak 4]

Oh. Well in that case, I agree. Might've been a misunderstanding there.

But the PvP will be improved in ArmA 3, most likely. As the game is less clunky, and more smooth now. But we will see!

Yeah the game mechanics are definitely looking to be a lot smoother and precise, so first-person should be a move viable option. And with all the exposure arma's had recently maybe the user base will grow enough to facilitate a larger public gaming community.

[Winfernal 2]

You know, it's probably not a coincidence that DayZ is the one "mission type" that made a phenomenon when nothing else before in Arma had... maybe that's because Rocket was the only mission maker in all these years who had a compelling idea besides "yet another 'milsim' mission"? And if you think that DayZ's mission concept is awful, then that's implying that everyone else's were even worse. :p

I don't see "the state of Arma 3 PVP" improving that much if that paucity of mission ideas continues in Arma 3, even if moving around the game world 'sucks' less.

DayZ wasn't made to attract ArmA fans only, though. And it was a mod, not a mission. And it was also the first zombie mmo that worked! And it was an Anti-Game. Zombie fans finally saw something different than "Press A to WIN" games.

Many factors here.

Nothing wrong with mil-sim missions in mil-sims. But a bit more variety in missions, i'd love that.

Also, player vs player isn't good in ArmA 2. Much because of the clunkyness. But it will improve in ArmA 3. And maybe we will see a rise in PvP, instead of coop-"only".

Edited March 5, 2013 by Winfernal

[chortles 263]

I have to say,

makes Arma 3 look really compelling as far as "the engine's PVP possibilities".