Arma3: Metascore 73 | Spelunky: Metascore 91 | what the fuck?

[novemberist 2]

I'm wondering, what impact do magazine ratings have on the sales of a game like Arma? I mean, as was already pointed out, there hasn't been a lot of advertisement for Arma 3 or any sort of hype evolving around it and most ratings now are average at best, which might have discouraged a lot of "casual" gamers from buying the game furthermore...so can Arma, which isn't exactly a low budget product, be a financial success merely by being bought by a small group of hardcore fans of the series, most of whom probably even bought it on discount in the Alpha/Beta?

I don't know how well Arma sold to date, but I wouldn't be surprised if it has been a losing bargain so far. If that's the case, do BI have the resources to keep working on the game and supporting it for the coming years? All dedication and passion of the developers aside, they are still a small studio and I doubt that DayZ alone will allow Arma3 to be a financial failure without hitting BI too hard...

[calin_banc 19]

Don't forget that ArmA 2 was in a lot worse shape when it shipped.

[metalcraze 290]

Well if you see it that way yeah unfortunately they have. You know how every one is saying that Arma should redo their engine or features of their engine. Well do you think thats going to happen over night with no noticeable negatives? Yep they are taking a step back in many ways but I am trusting it is a necessary step back so they can once again move forward.

So to improve things you need to completely get rid of them and never add them back? I'm sorry but that's not how 'improving' works.

There is no reason for BIS to ever improve their game period. But that doesn't mean they won't. They did for arma 2. They are in arma 3. Maybe not as fast as you or I would like but they are.

They won't. ArmA2 was a huge leap forward from ArmA1 on day 1. ArmA3 has been out for 7 months and there's no improvement in plans whatsoever. And there won't be because the design is now finalized. Any further changes will simply break their campaign which sadly will be terrible (just look at showcases).

The only gameplay design addition BIS did to ArmA2 since 2009 was adding recoil in OA... which they cut out in A3 for guns that should actually have it. Like .50 cals

Personally I'm hoping for ACE mod to bring the true ArmA back. At least ACE team seems to be actually moving forward from game to game with clear improvements despite the engine limitations.

It's been 12 years and BIS can't even add wind to ballistics. I like how some of BIS devs boast about their ballistics on twitter but I'm sorry - wall penetration and bullet drop won't surprise anyone in 2013 except for people who started playing games only now.

[dmarkwick 261]

So to improve things you need to completely get rid of them and never add them back? I'm sorry but that's not how 'improving' works.

But you never acknowledge improvements in any case. You only ever see them as something that should have always been there.

They won't. ArmA2 was a huge leap forward from ArmA1 on day 1. ArmA3 has been out for 7 months and there's no improvement in plans whatsoever. And there won't be because the design is now finalized. Any further changes will simply break their campaign which sadly will be terrible (just look at showcases).

Plus you don't consider that improvements will or can be made even in principle. And when improvements do happen - you take credit for it from all the complaints you make.

The only gameplay design addition BIS did to ArmA2 since 2009 was adding recoil in OA... which they cut out in A3 for guns that should actually have it. Like .50 cals

Personally I'm hoping for ACE mod to bring the true ArmA back. At least ACE team seems to be actually moving forward from game to game with clear improvements despite the engine limitations.

It's been 12 years and BIS can't even add wind to ballistics. I like how some of BIS devs boast about their ballistics on twitter but I'm sorry - wall penetration and bullet drop won't surprise anyone in 2013 except for people who started playing games only now.

Lets hope you become somewhat happy when ACE is released.

[zapat 55]

I've been wondering about the original question for days now. (If it is still the topic. Sorry if I hijack the current flow:) )

And I kinda realized how outdated the current gameranking scores. I's been around (the one score system that is) since the 90s, when there were 3 types of games.

Now, it is like a system for vehicles, which scores:

-mileage

-speed

-upkeep/reliability

-looks

A Smart car would get something like: 10,8,9,9: a solid 9

A Nimitz class aircraft carrier would get:

2 (a nuclear powerplant, for moving? comeon!)

1 (a moped is faster)

3 (it is quite reliable, but the upkeep. You need a separate ministry in the government for this)

2 (a solid grey block)

It is fun though with all the aircraft taking off and landing, so I give it a 3.5

According to this the Navy should use Smart cars instead of carriers, right?

To translate it for the original question. Spelunky IS 9 in some regards, 1 in others. And I am not thinking the cliche categories, but abstract ones.

would give something like four 1s and a 9.

Arma is 10 in many regards, and 4 in others, 1. And again. It is not the usual graphics, sound, playtime caegories. I would give it like ten 10s,some 4s, and a 2.

Just like GTAs. They are not 10s. Mostly 10s, but they all have 5s.

It is just an idea, nothing much. I love to read reviews, and I always keep track of scores, but recently it has been insane.

[Sniperwolf572 758]

...

A Smart car

...

A Nimitz class aircraft carrier

...

If I rate a knife a 10 and an axe a 5, I'm still not going to use the axe to cut my bread and I won't use the knife to chop down a tree and that's the core of it. Score is irrelevant until someone makes another axe/knife so you have a choice between the two. You can compare their parts, the blade and the handle and rate them according to that, but it still won't matter to a lumberjack and a chef.

[Tonci87 163]

If I rate a knife a 10 and an axe a 5, I'm still not going to use the axe to cut my bread and I won't use the knife to chop down a tree and that's the core of it. Score is irrelevant until someone makes another axe/knife so you have a choice between the two. You can compare their parts, the blade and the handle and rate them according to that, but it still won't matter to a lumberjack and a chef.

And since Arma has no competition.... Well...

[Sniperwolf572 758]

And since Arma has no competition.... Well...

Yep, that's what I'm getting at. PES was once the no-brainer choice for a football fanatics game and FIFA was considered the inferior brother. Look at them now, one of them got it's shit together, the other one is just realising that all the compliments in the world from it's loyal fanbase don't mean a thing.

Competition is healthy, I'd love to see some, unfortunately our type of a community can't quite compare to the amount of people that love football.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVDAk0eK2Wo

[zapat 55]

But current reviews doesn't really say if it is a knife or an axe. A Game. With a score of 6. This drives people away. And while competition is good (I guess BF is competition) more people buying something means more funds means more people and probably better result faster.

I don't think if it's any use to talk about it here, since gamereviews work the way they work, it just came out of me. :)

[Sniperwolf572 758]

But current reviews doesn't really say if it is a knife or an axe. A Game. With a score of 6. This drives people away. And while competition is good (I guess BF is competition) more people buying something means more funds means more people and probably better result faster.

I don't think if it's any use to talk about it here, since gamereviews work the way they work, it just came out of me. :)

I can't agree with you, I don't think it drives people away in the way you present. Arma isn't the experience many seek, and it can't be everything for everyone, even if it got a 10.

BF isn't competition since the only resemblance to Arma it has is the fact that it's about soldiers shooting stuff. BF did well when it was mechs shooting stuff and it did well when it was "a people from a galaxy far far away" shooting stuff. Many games before BF were "things shooting stuff". BF/CoD/CS is are the Doom/Quake/UT of today packaged into modern setting and with incredible advancements such as right click to aim better and larger maps. It's incredibly structured. While ArmA is still OFP, an incredible sandbox, but when you look at it, everything is still made of sand.

You see this in many people that "come over and abandon BF for ArmA because somebody told them it's realistically superior", but in most cases they aren't looking for Arma type of play. They usually want something the same but slightly different. Which Arma isn't.

[krycek 349]

Well I would disagree but that is another discussion entirely.

I think what people must understand is that Dwarden is not saying "We didn't deliver? Tough shit, go somewhere else" but rather "We didn't deliver? We tried and are continuing to try. If that's not good enough maybe somewhere else will be". He is actually being honesty rather than trying to reel you in and sell you on something that the devs are unable to deliver at this point in time. I don't think the devs are ignoring feed back. I think its rather that they simply do not have the resources to act upon all of it just yet or in some cases it is just not high on their priority list. This is not an excuse for the quality of the game. But it is the truth of the situation. Dwarden is being realistic.

Precisely that's why I adopted a "wait and see" stance.Can't say I'm in the crowd of people defending A3 to the point of fanatism or the other extreme where everything is doom and gloom in A3 land.A3 has it's highs and lows,some older and not rectified in this latest Arma version.

How they handle content and fixes from now on will establish if A3 one day could be considered a worthy sequel for me.

[antoineflemming 14]

Precisely that's why I adopted a "wait and see" stance.Can't say I'm in the crowd of people defending A3 to the point of fanatism or the other extreme where everything is doom and gloom in A3 land.A3 has it's highs and lows,some older and not rectified in this latest Arma version.

How they handle content and fixes from now on will establish if A3 one day could be considered a worthy sequel for me.

This. Spot on, and my position as well.

[novemberist 2]

Yep, that's what I'm getting at. PES was once the no-brainer choice for a football fanatics game and FIFA was considered the inferior brother. Look at them now, one of them got it's shit together, the other one is just realising that all the compliments in the world from it's loyal fanbase don't mean a thing.

Competition is healthy, I'd love to see some, unfortunately our type of a community can't quite compare to the amount of people that love football.

Well, war isn't exactly a popular topic anymore. Especially if you have the aspirations to portray and reenact it realistically and without any amount of abstraction and hyperbole, like other games do it. I think a lot of people in the Arma community have served in the Army or are interested in the topic of warfare beyond the scale of having some quick fun in a game. Once you leave this sphere of "It's just a game although I despise war in real life" and create the feeling of rather using a military training tool or propaganda game(America's Army...), it becomes problematic for some people and puts them off. It's a niche genre for military freaks, most of which have been loyal to this series for more than 10 years. Who would want to compete with that?

Personally, I despise war and militarism completely and would never touch a gun a real life, yet can have some amount fun with the game

even though I never really get a feeling of immersion. However, I can understand if many people can't have fun with a game like Arma even if they generally do play fps games...

[antoineflemming 14]

I can't agree with you, I don't think it drives people away in the way you present. Arma isn't the experience many seek, and it can't be everything for everyone, even if it got a 10.

BF isn't competition since the only resemblance to Arma it has is the fact that it's about soldiers shooting stuff. BF did well when it was mechs shooting stuff and it did well when it was "a people from a galaxy far far away" shooting stuff. Many games before BF were "things shooting stuff". BF/CoD/CS is are the Doom/Quake/UT of today packaged into modern setting and with incredible advancements such as right click to aim better and larger maps. It's incredibly structured. While ArmA is still OFP, an incredible sandbox, but when you look at it, everything is still made of sand.

You see this in many people that "come over and abandon BF for ArmA because somebody told them it's realistically superior", but in most cases they aren't looking for Arma type of play. They usually want something the same but slightly different. Which Arma isn't.

They want a more difficult, more "hardcore" experience and equate realism with difficulty. And they leave disappointed because they find out what it really means to be more realistic.

[nodunit 397]

They want a more difficult, more "hardcore" experience and equate realism with difficulty. And they leave disappointed because they find out what it really means to be more realistic.

Not necessarily, there is never one single reason, always many but I'm willing to be that the action menu and overall interaction interface with what should be simple things such as opening doors and climbing ladders has to do with it..that alone has turned so many people away and I can't blame them, I know I get frustrated when I repeatedly click middle mouse to open the door I'm staring at while the one beside me repeatedly opens and closes, not even giving me any feedback of the door opening and shutting.

People can accept a sharp learning curve, they can accept a great difficulty, what they cannot accept is non-intuitive controls.

[antoineflemming 14]

Not necessarily, there is never one single reason, always many but I'm willing to be that the action menu and overall interaction interface with what should be simple things such as opening doors and climbing ladders has to do with it..that alone has turned so many people away and I can't blame them, I know I get frustrated when I repeatedly click middle mouse to open the door I'm staring at while the one beside me repeatedly opens and closes, not even giving me any feedback of the door opening and shutting.

I was just specifically talking about those who come over from games like BF (seen that a good amount of times in regards to Arma 3) looking for a more realistic experience.

[Smurf 12]

Not necessarily, there is never one single reason, always many but I'm willing to be that the action menu and overall interaction interface with what should be simple things such as opening doors and climbing ladders has to do with it..that alone has turned so many people away and I can't blame them, I know I get frustrated when I repeatedly click middle mouse to open the door I'm staring at while the one beside me repeatedly opens and closes, not even giving me any feedback of the door opening and shutting.

Yep, more these type of things than "oh, this is too hardcore for me".

Actually, I don't think most people would mind to have a even more hardcore game (in the sense of more realistic use of weapons\vehicles) if they were intuitive to use.

If the game is hard, you adapt, win! Dark Souls!

But when you can't do what you want because it isn't clear how to, you just leave frustrated. Not so many things require a "second thought" on how to be done like they do in Arma.

Edited October 8, 2013 by Smurf

[LoneCrow66 10]

Realistically this is around a 70% as it stands. Maybe less. Its not even half of a game.

---------- Post added at 03:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:15 PM ----------

Also let me say that if this were released with a lot more aircraft, vehicles, and a bunch of single player missions, as well as a bunch of coop multiplayer missions as it stands in its current form I would give it a 90%