Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
dnk

ArmA2 ACE = CoD ???

Recommended Posts

For EVERYONE whining about the new movements... has anyone actually done a 1:1 comparison with A2?

Here's with ACE2, the supposedly hyper-realistic mod.

Can we all shut up now? The only real difference in these two games is turning inertia, which I support changing back (or at least somewhere in the middle so it exists and limits super-twitch play).

Additionally, the "tactical pace" (which DID exist in A2, pull up sights while in "normal run") is:

A3 tactical pace = 45s

A2 tactical pace = 31.5s

Difference = 70% as fast in A3!

THIS VIDEO HAD A MISTAKE - BOTH THE "RUN" AND "SPRINT" SECTIONS WERE THE SAME SPRINTING CLIPS - MY BAD. IT IS NOW FIXED.

(the crouch run was cut midway due to excessive length - you get the idea, but the time was taken from the full video I have)

Crouch:

4% faster in A3

Run:

5% slower in A3

Tactical Pace:

30% slower in A3

Sprint:

5% faster in A3

Edited by DNK
I make stupid mistakes that only hurt me!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm thinking perhaps you missed the point of the complaint. It seems to me like the COD gameplay comes in with the combat pace running while shooting while aiming.

---------- Post added at 22:20 ---------- Previous post was at 21:49 ----------

I think also possibly another source of criticism comes from the ease at which you can run up hills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm thinking perhaps you missed the point of the complaint. It seems to me like the COD gameplay comes in with the combat pace running while shooting while aiming.

---------- Post added at 22:20 ---------- Previous post was at 21:49 ----------

I think also possibly another source of criticism comes from the ease at which you can run up hills.

I also dislike how one can sprint up steep slopes, and hope that it will change. But for now it's an improvement over Arma 2, in regards to the animations not stopping and starting depending on the incline.

As for operating weapons while jogging, this is completely possible in real life so I don't see the problem. Accuracy is obviously reduced, allowing for inaccurate ranged suppressive fire or faster entry to unsecured buildings or compounds. :)

In my opinion, the developers are onto the right track with movement and stances. But as with anything, there's still lots of room for improvement. Overall, I feel that the animations are more fluid and give a greater representation of real life movement in comparison with Arma 2.

Edit: If you could create a side-by-side showcase of movement from Arma 3, Battlefield 3 and Call of Duty, I think that would silence many critics.

Edited by MissileMoose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh God how I cringed at the clunky strafing movement of ArmA II at 1:01. :( What has been seen, can not be unseen - and it's been quite a while since last time I saw/experienced that. LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice one DNK. But I doubt people will stop whining. I mean there are some that seriously think A2 controls were better. They think its more "realistic". :j:

BIS please don't ruin the current controls/movement in favor of the vocal minority that think realistic movement = whale on land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm thinking perhaps you missed the point of the complaint. It seems to me like the COD gameplay comes in with the combat pace running while shooting while aiming.
The funny thing is, whenever I've watched COD MP footage much of the time it's "sprint (by COD standards) around, then aim through sights (which forces the player into walk-by-COD-standards speed anyway) unless someone rounded a corner enough to take you by surprise"... the "not aiming through sights" position doesn't seem to come into it all that much.

fujix: considering that combat pace (as "tactical pace") was one of the things that they were talking up at E3 and Gamescom, and it was probably one of the things people thought of when thinking "Smookie hired for Arma 3"... hell, considering several of RiE, Ivan, Smookie, Vespa, and other devs' comments... and hell, considering DnA and Maruk's comments regarding the Steamworks announcement... if you put a Venn diagram about the complainers about the Steamworks announcement and the complainers about the Arma 3 movement... ;)

P.S. See my sig.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I also dislike how one can sprint up steep slopes, and hope that it will change. But for now it's an improvement over Arma 2, in regards to the animations not stopping and starting depending on the incline.

I agree. I don't think anyone was arguing that the clunky animation transitions of arma 2 are a good thing, though.

As for operating weapons while jogging, this is completely possible in real life so I don't see the problem. Accuracy is obviously reduced, allowing for inaccurate ranged suppressive fire or faster entry to unsecured buildings or compounds. :)

I don't really think you can maintain a sight picture while running.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CoD gameplay is basically sprinting around and reflex firing. Forget tactical movement, forget single shot, forget working as a team - its one-man army rambos running around to get kills. As much as DayZ can be entertaining, it has however invited quite a lot of people with that sort of mentality.

Sadly, this is exactly the same situation as what happened with Unreal Tournament: Infiltration back in 1999 before OFP came out. Infiltration had iron sights, it had weight, it had recoil... it was sort of like OFP before OFP was OFP. Sadly, back then there was also an influx of counter-strike players.

They argued incessantly that movements in INF was too sluggish and not fast enough, responses were slot and didnt favor hip shooting. Oh, and that it had no crosshairs.

I'm not saying new players are bad - but I certainly dont want a military simulator watered down to the brainless level that Call of Duty is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm thinking perhaps you missed the point of the complaint. It seems to me like the COD gameplay comes in with the combat pace running while shooting while aiming.
The funny thing is, whenever I've watched COD MP footage much of the time it's "sprint (by COD standards) around, then aim through sights (which forces the player into walk-by-COD-standards speed anyway) unless someone rounded a corner enough to take you by surprise"... the "not aiming through sights" position that's associated with combat pace actually doesn't seem to come into it all that much.

fujix: considering that combat pace (as "tactical pace") was one of the things that they were talking up at E3 and Gamescom, and it was probably one of the things people thought of when thinking "Smookie hired for Arma 3"... hell, considering several of RiE, Ivan, Smookie, Vespa, and other devs' comments... and hell, considering DnA and Maruk's comments regarding the Steamworks announcement... if you put a Venn diagram about the complainers about the Steamworks announcement and the complainers about the Arma 3 movement... ;) Also, that "apparently people lack inertia/weight in Arma 3" thread that started over Dslyecxi's "Things have changed" video? "The video cited in the OP is showing something that I have trained to do IRL, live-fire, while moving, and while firing with one hand."

P.S. See my sig.

Edited by Chortles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tbh it puzzles me that there are so many complaints about some really awesome improvements from A2. A2 was an awesome game, but it had lots of flaws and BIS have improved a lot in A3. But then these backwards people come and moan that its not "realistic".

Sure some things need tweaking but overall I hope BIS stays on course because A3 so has the potential to be truly awesome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The funny thing is, whenever I've watched COD MP footage much of the time it's "sprint (by COD standards) around, then aim through sights (which forces the player into walk-by-COD-standards speed anyway) unless someone rounded a corner enough to take you by surprise"... the "not aiming through sights" position doesn't seem to come into it all that much.

I've never really played it so I don't know what they are talking about when they are comparing arma 3 to CoD. I just get that there is some objection to some things that seem more or less physically impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tbh it puzzles me that there are so many complaints about some really awesome improvements from A2. A2 was an awesome game, but it had lots of flaws and BIS have improved a lot in A3. But then these backwards people come and moan that its not "realistic".

Sure some things need tweaking but overall I hope BIS stays on course because A3 so has the potential to be truly awesome.

Expectations and two opposing sides of the community. The community has rarely if EVER agreed on any feature alone, it goes into a long winded debate about the pro's and cons with both sides vieing for as many points as they can, akin to watching politics in some ways. Some people see it as an upgrade while others never wanted it. Others like the idea of it but don't think it is implemented as well as it could be.

And of course there is the other thing...between liking and disliking things, people are far more vocal when they dislike something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, it's important not to view the community as a 'thing'. The community as it's own entity does not exist. It's like when someone says, "People want this, then people want that". I think it's more like a person wanted something and another person wants something else.

I think it's also important not to confuse criticism of some changes with an out and out objection to all of the changes. Who knows if the people who think the new movement system is CoDifying the game also like the smoothness of the new animation transitions? It's like NodUnit said, people tend to be more vocal when they don't like something... and I think also it's easy to ignore praise when there's negativity around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CoD gameplay is basically sprinting around and reflex firing. Forget tactical movement, forget single shot, forget working as a team - its one-man army rambos running around to get kills. As much as DayZ can be entertaining, it has however invited quite a lot of people with that sort of mentality.

This "I'm better than thou" attitude, that we've seen plenty of since Armed Assault, must cease for the good of the game.

one-man army rambos running around to get kills is a usual sight on ArmA 2 public servers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People are complaining about the movement?

Wow. The movement is an outstanding improvement in A3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not saying new players are bad - but I certainly dont want a military simulator watered down to the brainless level that Call of Duty is.
Hey Leon86, is that you? :lol:

Let me correct you here: "watered down to the brainless level that Call of Duty" is a matter of the players and server admins more than anything that the devs themselves could do to Arma. Don't give up hope on the series when you see the devs make their changes or decide a different, "softer/smoother/de-edged" direction for the series, give up hope on the series when the server browser is filled with "AGIA MARINA TDM 24/7 FAST RESPAWN 3000 SCORE LIMIT NO CAMPING ALLOWED" mission names. :p

Sure some things need tweaking but overall I hope BIS stays on course because A3 so has the potential to be truly awesome.
This I agree with; I'm cool with tweaks, but it seems like the complainers are complaining that the devs' public alpha state of infantry movement and weapon handling, the baseline, is at the opposite end of the spectrum from what they want, so mere tweaking (Vespa has said that there will be tweaking) doesn't satisfy them because "it's not enough, so many more issues!" and because instead of 'dialing up from Arma 2' the devs seem to have chosen to 'take this and dial down'... so the complainers' desired approach and the devs' seeming approach are fundamentally at opposite ends.

It's one thing for them to move towards the center, but it seems like the complainers refuse to accept that the devs started from the opposite end. :rolleyes:

Edited by Chortles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People are complaining about the movement?

Wow. The movement is an outstanding improvement in A3.

It's less clunky, but I would agree with the argument that you could never get a clear sight picture whilst in "tactical pace" speeds.

It's my belief that, without a dead zone, the gun should move off centre every time you move the mouse, and while turning the gun should lead or lag with the sights going out of alignment (lead is less frustrating, so I'd go with that).

Basically, the mouse should control where your chest is facing (I'd say head direction but the game has free head movement), every time the mouse moves the chest should move (no dead zone), but the gun sights/barrel shouldn't stay perfectly lined up with your eyes.

I would love a game with realistic gun aiming, where the sights aren't magically 100% aligned. It's my belief that Arma should be that game, it would take away the COD effect (people are far too accurate on the move currently), force people to play slower not through some artificial constraint but instead due to them wanting a more accurate shot. Sure, in tactical pace you could raise the weapon so your eye looked along the top of the weapon, but the motion of running would cause a holosight to flash in and out of visibility frequently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but I certainly dont want a military simulator watered down to the brainless level that Call of Duty is.

Its a game, not a simulator. VBS is a simulator. What differs Arma from CoD/BF/CS etc etc, is that its leaning more towards realism than arcade game play. But its still a game :)

Also just because we are not moving as cripples in A3 doesn't make it a watered down FPS ala Cod..... A3 is nowhere near CoD. Have you even played that game?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's my belief that, without a dead zone, the gun should move off centre every time you move the mouse, and while turning the gun should lead or lag with the sights going out of alignment (lead is less frustrating, so I'd go with that).
This sounds way too close to "negative mouse acceleration" for me to accept.

In general your concept sounds like you're basically calling for "more sight bob" to compensate for being able to aim while moving at tactical pace, but I personally find that the existing amount of sway is already enough to influence me to make decisions re: tactics; that is to say, I don't want more sway because the amount from Arma 2 was already my experience with "flash in and out of visibility frequently" enough to hurt my eyes/make me nauseous while the existing state already causes "play slower not through some artificial constraint but instead due to them wanting a more accurate shot" for me.

Its a game, not a simulator. VBS is a simulator. What differs Arma from CoD/BF/CS etc etc, is that its leaning more towards realism than arcade game play. But its still a game :)
This, this, this... every time someone complaining about the current state calls Arma a "simulator" just leaves me aghast with distaste for their sense of reality...
Also just because we are not moving as cripples in A3 doesn't make it a watered down FPS ala Cod..... A3 is nowhere near CoD. Have you even played that game?
As someone who gave the Black Ops 2 free weekend on Steam a shot -- again, free* -- having played both BO2 and A3, I never considered playing BO2 again after that free weekend and looked forward to A3, because I knew what I wanted that BI/A3 will give me but COD -- or rather, Activision -- never will. ;)

I'm going to add that "public alpha infantry movement and weapon handling" footage is specifically what I use to promote Arma 3 in person... that's right, in person, by showing off Arma 3 infantry videos to customers at my job; they're suitably impressed by the graphics fidelity, then they're struck by the sheer scale of combat outdoors, the night combat (with and without NVGs) and the outdoors settings, i.e. firefights in the forest, to clearly set it apart from COD.

* Yes, the "free" part matters.

Edited by Chortles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Chortles

Yeah I played CoD:MW 2 for a couple of hours when it was released. After that I purged it from my hdd. My gamer spirit felt violated by that gam......thing. I mean I really enjoyed older twitch shooters like CS, BF2, UT and the Quake series. But CoD was sooooooooooo bad.

So when people say that A3 is turning into Cod....pardon my french but they are full of shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm, I may have made a mistake. I think running in A2 is 19.5s, not 15.0. I mixed up clips. Doh. That does make the run speed for A3 more than marginally faster, so my video is incorrect.

That said, you guys do know there's a tactical pace in A2 also, right? Bring up your scope while in running mode, it's halfway between run and walk. It might be faster here, but I forgot to check it.

A3 tactical pace = 45s

A2 tactical pace = 31.5s

Difference = 70% as fast

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've never really played it so I don't know what they are talking about when they are comparing arma 3 to CoD. I just get that there is some objection to some things that seem more or less physically impossible.
To me the COD videos actually make the complaints feel a tad bit hollow, since amusingly enough the aforementioned "much of what I see in COD videos" has analogues in the Arma 2 controls anyway -- maneuvering about (and unable to fire) until finding a target, then sighting in and slowing down (in conventional FPS games for stability's sake, in A2 that was because that was the only option for "moving with weapon up" unless you had the SMK animations mod). The interim speed which "combat pace" has been compared to 'merely' means that in conventional FPS games someone could move faster-than-walk without aiming down the sight but with the weapon raised (though according to Dslyecxi in his Movement & Shooting Tutorial the weapon is still shouldered) unlike in Arma 2, and "combat pace" brings this capability to Arma 3.
I agree. I don't think anyone was arguing that the clunky animation transitions of arma 2 are a good thing, though.
Judging by some of the comments that I've seen in the various threads... I seriously thought that at least some of them were, and I am absolutely certain that one thread starter specifically preferred Arma 2 animations to Arma 3's animations... though they haven't been seen since after *ahem* publicly regretting buying a Supporter Edition and telling Smookie "I read that you guys did the motion capture yourself? I can only suggest paying actors next time" in response to Smookie defending-or-at-least-explaining the work that was done.

Whereas I personally believe that others are using any such changes to fuel and justify existing negative beliefs about the direction of development.

I don't really think you can maintain a sight picture while running.
A sight picture at all =/= a stable sight picture, and that difference I find to be clearly simulated, which is already enough of a concession to realism for me.

As a point of note, Smookie said that "recent design decisions" are the reason for being able to maintain combat pace while aiming through sights instead of being forced into walk like in other FPS games with aiming-through-sights. MW3 and BO2 both had mitigation of this movement speed reduction, but those mitigations take up a perk (Stalker, MW3) or primary weapon attachment slot (Adjustable Stock, BO2) respectively so at least in those games there's an opportunity cost, whereas "recent design decisions" (this was around the time of the alpha public release) mean that "combat pace while aiming through sights" is default in the alpha and its tradeoff is "more sway in sight picture".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If by sight picture you mean stable camera while running, it's not all unrealistic. The human brain uses some tricks to make out life easier (like you can see your own nose all the time, but the brain ignores this). In case of running, the eye accommodation (not sure if that's what it's called in English), allow you to focus your eyesight on a certain point and disregard the head bob.

The eye focus point can also be shifted in a matter of milliseconds, so technically we are able to run with our body all bouncing yet still retain a clear and (at least for the brain) stable picture of what we are looking at. This of course starts to degrade when we get tired and in that regard Arma 2 did a great job of blurring the view. What we have in Arma 3 is indeed easier in terms of faster paced combat, but at the same time realistic in my opinion. Anyway, the deadly nature of Arma combat still grants advantage to the stationary soldier, so I would not be worried too much about combat becoming like in other FPS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the deadly nature of Arma combat still grants advantage to the stationary soldier
This is still the sense that I get in Arma 3, and truthbetold I get the sense that the further out the engagement distance, the more this disparity/advantage (for the stationary soldier behind cover aiming through the sight from a low stance) is magnified, and remains this way on a scale that is decidedly antithetical to "COD gameplay".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somebody complained about combat pace?

There are complaints about soldier's body lacking any kind of inertia, weapons lacking any kind of weight.

In ArmA3 you stand in one place then hit shift+W and take off like a rocket without any speed build up. And even if you are carrying NLAW in your hands you can do 180 turn without losing any speed, just go in the opposite direction immediately. You can turn as fast as you want even with heavy weapons. Running is so immediate you can dodge out of bullets path. You can stop immediately after running. You can go prone and then rotate as fast as you want.

Whether you fight with a pistol, a carbine, a LMG or a rocket launcher - it makes NO difference at all. Just like in guess which game.

People complained to stop kids from running around with M107 and Javelin in ArmA2... But instead BIS made pulling that off even easier in ArmA3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×