Movement still feels like Operation Flashpoint

[accapella 1]

Alot of people like to bash call of duty out of principle and they're either aged neckbeards or edgy teenagers.

But one thing is for real: COD has set an expectation for movement in videogames for an entire generation of people who play videogames, that expectation is probably not actually the best possible movement from a gameplay or a realism standpoint (The player is a floating camera and has no acceleration period, he launches into full speed at once.) but it's still an expectation caused by people becoming very accustomed to how COD plays, the movement and it's quirks have to be exactly the same or it will feel unnatural and unfamiliar.

ARMA 3's movement imo feels quite fluid, definitely not perfect but still very playable without sacrificing the full body awareness stuff.

[OrLoK 20]

Hello there

Avatar control and weapon handling In RO/RS does feel far more immediate, but is also a little flawed. If we could force Arma and RO/RS to mate we could have a beautiful movement baby.... or a hideous mutant.

Rgds

LoK

[4 IN 1 0]

I personally think that feeling like OFP is actually a Good thing, as OFP movement is actually smoother then that of ARMA1 and 2.

With that said, thank god that it didn't feel like ARMA 2 and that COD spoiled kids still hate it.

[bad benson 1733]

i would like to see all the people that complain that they aren't able to move like a floating camera like in other games to move like a character in bf3, for example, in real life. would be funny to see them stumble over their own feet and fall all the time. just because it feels natural doesn't mean it's realistic. don't get me wrong i like games like bf3 for what they are but arma has a very different scope than those games. while overall accessibility is a good thing restrictions are what create realistic gameplay. and you can still move very fluently in arma. it's just harder to master because you aren't an air hockey disc being able to slide around just how you wish.

Your going down the right tracks but even arma isn't realistic just because it's more clunky and it will never be reached in a video game because different parts of your body move differently. Your arms for instance move faster than most other body parts. You cannot run forward and suddenly change your direction instantly to run 90 degrees left or right. I'd like them to slow your turn rate depending on how fast you are running and stop with this nonsense where you can turn ur body around and around as fast as you like.

different to most people i would never compare arma's or any other game's movement to the movement of my own body because the comparison is just silly. standard FPSs put no obstacles in your way at all. that's why they "feel" natural to people because they have 100% control. the funny thing is if you would watch most those same people play basketball or any other activity that requires sudden direction changes you would probably describe their movements as clunky (or let them watch themselfs on video afterwards). while we aren't all athletes we'd like to move like one in games because, well, they are games. that is totally understandable.

my view of realism in this case is more how a game's movement system makes players act ingame not how close it is to the "feeling" you have when "operating" your own body. i'm not trying to argue against improving the system but the the statement that the arma series has it all wrong in general and that it's just a badly made shooter. people just don't seem to get it.

[tedbell 0]

BF3 perfected movement and the ability to fluidly climb over obstacles. Arma has always had a more realistic feel to it with the camera shake while moving, but could benefit with allowing the player to navigate obstacles easier. Adding a jump would be nice, without the ability to bunny hop of course.

[tet5uo 4]

Arma has always had a more realistic feel to it with the camera shake while moving

I actually don't find this realistic at all.

Our brains automatically stabilize the image our eyes receive so that we don't perceive every single jitter of our eyes. When was the last time your vision swayed from side-to-side from simply waling briskly.

If we're meant to be playing robots with cheap cameras for eyes, I guess it's realistic. Same goes for the annoying motion-blur.

[bad benson 1733]

camera shake is just an effect that can be turned down or be disabled entirely. same goes for motion blur. nothing to do with movement. i play with just slight head bob since no head bob at all feels as unrealistic as full head bob. motion blur i turn off in any game that allows me to. i don't get how anyone would want this.

[zozamex 1]

I feel the ArmA 3 movement is vastly improved over the original, however like said before i belive some sluggishness is required for everyone to not run around like idiots jumping shooting 360 no scopes... after all ArmA is about authenticity and realism.

[Jex 1]

I would love to see a jump! Also, I agree that BF3 vaulting over obstacles is near perfect - as close to that smoothness would be greatly appreciated.

Perfect in what regard - real life? When you can provide a youtube clip of soldiers in real life doing that as the majority of maneuvers (rather than the more slower and careful negotiation of obstacles) then you might have an argument. Until that time, BF3 is near perfect to fantasy is every way - there is no realism, Arma at least strives to bring that to gamers.

It's odd that out of hundreds of FPS's out there that one being different is a problem for you and you want it to be the same dog shit as the other games you are playing.

---------- Post added at 17:59 ---------- Previous post was at 17:35 ----------

different to most people i would never compare arma's or any other game's movement to the movement of my own body because the comparison is just silly. standard FPSs put no obstacles in your way at all. that's why they "feel" natural to people because they have 100% control. the funny thing is if you would watch most those same people play basketball or any other activity that requires sudden direction changes you would probably describe their movements as clunky (or let them watch themselfs on video afterwards). while we aren't all athletes we'd like to move like one in games because, well, they are games. that is totally understandable.

my view of realism in this case is more how a game's movement system makes players act ingame not how close it is to the "feeling" you have when "operating" your own body. i'm not trying to argue against improving the system but the the statement that the arma series has it all wrong in general and that it's just a badly made shooter. people just don't seem to get it.

Well I think they could go further with the movement, as in slow down how fast you can spin round say to realistic levels. I don't want to feel like I'm in a body, I just want the body I'm in to move realistically and not change direction on a dime and have the animations fluid like they are with a real body.

Take cod for instance, there's literally nobody that could move their body 180 degrees like you could in that, almost instantly. The people that like that gameplay are lazy - they're too lazy to get off their asses and do shit so they sit and play cod all day long which is the easiest game to play, practically no effort required whatsoever. No need to engage the brain, just press a button to run and a button to fire and that's it. COD and it's counterparts have seemingly mastered the laziest way to make a game play out and then low and behold, the lemmings flock to buy it. No brain work, no innovation, no creativity, no effort put in or required, just a bland copy of it's predecessor.

I wish we had more games like arma and RO (except RO's weapon loadouts - yeah i love the bolt action EVERY time I play). These COD shooters are just bland and uninteresting and they're becoming more so with every side grade they bring out to the series.

[PFC Magician 10]

people compared to cod because it is a game that translates to 100% of the player's reaction in a close combat(like a laser gun hall),but COD series in the future is not going anywhere just another console interactive movie, but as I said and just focusing in motion, the COD MW get a direct response experience especially in multiplayer battles, and that's the reason why it is so famous and compared.

Now Arma series can improve moves maybe in the future? maybe in Arma 6?

right now I am satisfied with the movements, but beware unless they innovate then there will be competitors

nobody used or improved the RAGE engine or Creation Engine for military battles for now.

Edited March 25, 2013 by PFC Magician

[Varanon 892]

Same goes for the annoying motion-blur.

The motion blur just simulates the fact that if you look around rapidly, you don't pick up details. If you try that in real life, you will notice that you can only see smudges when moving your head.

[Gorbachev 1]

I find it almost impossible to turn my head or whole body without my eyes locking onto a fixed point. It's not like trying to single out a single blade on the ceiling fan. It comes much more naturally and almost against my will.

[Varanon 892]

I find it almost impossible to turn my head or whole body without my eyes locking onto a fixed point. It's not like trying to single out a single blade on the ceiling fan. It comes much more naturally and almost against my will.

So, what do you expect Arma to do ? Keep your head fixed to one direction ? Probably not. That's why the blur is actually quite realistic

[arpin_ 10]

I wish we had more games like arma and RO (except RO's weapon loadouts - yeah i love the bolt action EVERY time I play).

At least you ALWAYS get a rifle in RO. Hell, the Soviet Union has even enough grenades and ammo for each trooper in that game. :)

---------- Post added at 01:31 ---------- Previous post was at 01:12 ----------

So, what do you expect Arma to do ? Keep your head fixed to one direction ? Probably not. That's why the blur is actually quite realistic

I disagree. The blur makes the player basically blind for that short moment of head turn. This is not the case in real life. I can turn my head 90 degrees and still see clearly the thing I'm looking at, my eyes are NOT glued into my head. The blur simulates that kind of thing where you can't move your eyes independently from your head rotation.

Another example, 180 degrees of head rotation. Obviously I cannot fix my sight to a single point now. Instead I have to take several points I look when I turn my head. This comes naturally also while looking through monitor. You need to consentrate your sight to something, and your eyes still cannot register everything if you turn quickly in the game even without motion blur. When you add motion blur it makes focusing your sight impossible thus making you visually impaired for that moment.

[Varanon 892]

I disagree. The blur makes the player basically blind for that short moment of head turn. This is not the case in real life. I can turn my head 90 degrees and still see clearly the thing I'm looking at, my eyes are NOT glued into my head. The blur simulates that kind of thing where you can't move your eyes independently from your head rotation.

Again, then what do you expect Arma to do ? Keep your eyes at the spot they have been at ? Even though you turn your head ?

In real life, your eyes are not glued to your head. In Arma, they are. If you move your eyes quickly, your vision is blurred. Since Arma can not also simulate your eyes independently of your head, it assumes you look straight ahead.

You can argue as much as you want about what you can do with your *eyes*, but they are not in the game, there you only have your head. Thus, the blur.

[bad benson 1733]

you should not overthink it that much. motion blur has nothing to do with simulation. it's an effect introduced by one of the last 3 or 4 directX versions. since then lots of games have added it. much like the bloom effect. sure it kind of simulates something but it's hardly something BI developed to make their game more realistic. it's more of an effect to make the visuals more busy and less sterile. i get that some people like it but it has nothing to do with what's originally discussed here.

[chortles 263]

Remember that COD only 'simulates' close quarters combat and that everything about the series is built around this; by edging closer to COD in terms of infantry movement and weapon handling while retaining more versatility (stance adjusting, movement speeds, fatigue) and the potentially larger scale, the difference between the series can be more pronounced in a positive way...

(I believe it was Smookie who said that "recent design decisions" allow you to maintain combat pace when you aim through sights... unlike COD. :-P)

[arpin_ 10]

In real life, your eyes are not glued to your head. In Arma, they are. If you move your eyes quickly, your vision is blurred. Since Arma can not also simulate your eyes independently of your head, it assumes you look straight ahead.

I see your point. Well then, what if you have a projector and a curved silver screen that actually shows you the full scale fov. What do you expect the player to do? Just keep staring forward? In this case I could fix my eyes to something on my right and turn my ingame head right. My eyes could follow the point in the view. Ideally my head stays still, only eye movement. Now if you add motion blur my whole view gets blurred.

Virtual reality only takes into account your ingame head's location and direction (camera). It doesn't mean that your eyes are "glued to the head". A game concerns only the head and the view it creates. In a game you only control your head not eyes. The view the game creates is only a projection for your real eyes.

The same thing holds true for small monitors as well such as most of we have. My monitor allows me to view this virtual reality through a window that allows about 26 degrees of fov, depending how close I put the monitor in the front of me. Then the game's 75 fov is fitted in that screen. Yes, it's awfully narrow to allow any eye movement of my own but it doesn't change the fact that my eyes can work independently from the projection and that I can fix my sight to several points on my monitor.

Motion blur is just an effect created to simulate the limited exposure time that cameras have.

Edited March 16, 2013 by Wizearm

[PFC Magician 10]

people compared to cod because it is a game that translates to 100% of the player's reaction in a close combat(like a laser gun hall),but COD series in the future is not going anywhere just another console interactive movie, but as I said and just focusing in motion, the COD MW get a direct response experience especially in multiplayer battles, and that's the reason why it is so famous and compared.

Now Arma series can improve moves maybe in the future? maybe in Arma 6?

right now I am satisfied with the movements, but beware unless they innovate then there will be competitors

nobody used or improved the RAGE engine or Creation Engine for military battles for now.

I was wrong!

Edited March 25, 2013 by PFC Magician

[lee1hy 1]

movement like ROBOT

[whisper 0]

Funny. I've had less stuck, blocked, clunky issues in A3 so far than in my last 2 FPS, namely BF3 and Planetside 2 (damn, this last one has big character stuck issues!)

I feel it more naturally in A3 because I KNOW I'm not going to be able to to unrealistic things, so I don't even attempts stupid moves.

I've been stuck once so far, in a rock. Not a movement issues, more a collision detection one (was partially stuck inside the rock)

My biggest issue with movement so far is the auto-up feature (your character getting up automatically for some weird reason)

[GoranDU 10]

OP said "However I still feel the weight of Operation Flashpoint" (in movement)

NO! You feel the weight of at least 40kg of gear on you (without weapon) :D

[Wolfstriked 11]

Finally purchased the Alpha last night and was pleasantly surprised.I actually am happy again as I was thinking that A3 would not be much better than A2 and now I know it will be.Much MUCH less sticking in doors etc is a huge plus for me.Weapons feel is excellent now and I am loving that part big time!!Looks better,runs better,feels better.....its just better!

But I find the controller setup could be worked a bit.First is the multitude of changes to stance height is absolutely amazing but not in execution.When you press the adjust key you must not be moving and this feels clunky and stiff.BUT there is an easy remedy that would make for a dream system in feel.I am talking about changing stance positions with the mouse scroll wheel.This way while moving you can change how much or how little u wanna expose of yourself by moving scroll wheel and would feel extremely :bounce3: fluid IMO.

Next is the AWESOME sidestep when you press adjust and then A or D.Its brilliant but not in execution.In real life you would normally side step rather then lean at the waist as its more comfortable to do but in the game you can easily lean by pressing Q/E while to sidestep is kinda tricky.

In A3,when I come to a corner I stop short and then must dance the keys to get me to side step.Example(release/W...press ADJUST/D....take a few shots and then press ADJUST/A to center body again etc etc).

Instead it should be (release/W...hold/E to fluidly sidestep and then release/E to center again).And just like with lean you DBL tap E to hold the sidestep but I doubt players will do this as it feels fluid holding/releasing the key.

To actually lean now it should be an extra step as its harder in real life to do.So while holding E you will be sidestepping and if you need to peak out just that tiny bit more than press ADJUST and you are now sidestepping and leaning over.

These two changes would make this system perfect IMO.

Edited March 25, 2013 by Wolfstriked