Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
sayjimwoo

Bohemia Interactive's ambitions are always set too high.

Recommended Posts

You're talking about soldier protection at all. :rolleyes: The relevant post from oukej states that "the proper implementation" of the optimal solution (fire geometry of vest) "has currently been impossible" as of a week before ADAPT's release, therefore "The changes/tweaks are aimed to simply improve the experience of the game "as it is now" - increase the variety and benefits of wearing vests/helmets (unlike the previous state)." (Boldfacing is by me.)"

No, I'm pretty sure we're all talking about the same thing. Properly accurate fire geometry is essential to a balanced and realistic portrayal of body armor (you know, like helmets that only cover the top of your head not protecting your entire face) and if the engine isn't in a place where detailed hit detection based on armor type can be implemented, it's probably not a good idea to shove some poorly thought out alternative system in there (helmets covering your face). I don't know what the rolleyes was for since I was using Oukej's statement as evidence that the engine isn't where it needs to be and perhaps an example of Bohemia's ambitions running away with them.

Sounds very "damned if you do, damned if you don't."

I guess that's the kind of problem you run into when you don't keep up with advancements in the industry over the course of a decade.

LOL, for christs sake man we're not in a court of law yet you find a "huge problem with my statement"

Courtrooms aren't the only places that your arguments have to make logical sense. You keep throwing this accusation around as if it's going to hurt my feelings and I'll take it easy on your flawed arguments. I'm not.

Edit:

I distinctly recall RTI "losing out" on account of rather different criteria than "a battle of the engines", or at least on criteria that (compared to what we look for out of Arma) is very esoteric and practically irrelevant to our experience as gamers.

This. Also, we really shouldn't be talking about RTI and VBS at all since they are completely different products from Arma and aren't even really supposed to be games. They are tools with specific purposes demanded by the organizations that contract with the companies that make them.

Edited by roshnak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Courtrooms aren't the only places that your arguments have to make logical sense. You keep throwing this accusation around as if it's going to hurt my feelings and I'll take it easy on your flawed arguments. I'm not.

Then use logic. For what reason would I make the implication that BI is also a huge company? It has no bearing on my statement whatsoever. Yet you choose to focus on semantics to a ridiculous level which compels me to ridicule your legalese.

As far as comparing VBS to RTI, well we really don't have much to go off material wise in why engine x is superior to RV yet so many here are clamoring for another engine. I simply say "based on what?"

---------- Post added at 00:52 ---------- Previous post was at 00:41 ----------

I distinctly recall RTI "losing out" on account of rather different criteria than "a battle of the engines", or at least on criteria that (compared to what we look for out of Arma) is very esoteric and practically irrelevant to our experience as gamers.

I'd be very interested in hearing what that criteria was. I remember when some military bigwig made the statement that he wanted to move away from RV and towards something that played and looked like CoD -pretty funny actually, Ill try and find that interview.

I did find this for criteria for the U.S Army:

Some of the requirements for the new flagship product is that it provide all the features of VBS2 and shall use industry standards for model, terrain and other content imported into the game. Additionally, it shall be capable of importing and exporting Synthetic Environment Core (SE Core) simulation terrain and Common Moving Models as well as One Semi-Automated Forces (OneSAF) behavioral models. This new capability is important as the military moves to integrate LVC training.
Edited by froggyluv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Really? I find these types of statements somewhat ridiculous akin to "I could beat all MMA fighters with my secret ancient Tiger Claw kung fu technique -I just choose not to". Surely AAA developers have noticed a little zombie game I won't name here that has steamrolled *cough* steam's top seller (arma2 included) for some time. I would also strongly expect an announcement of an Arma-type game being developed by one of the big boys would receive a HUGE ovation and interest. The financial reward is already there for the taking yet I see no takers and if anything, the trend moving in the opposite direction of what Arma does.

I'm a pragmatist. Until I see it, I don't buy it.

No, it's that 1) BI isn't a big company. 2) Big companies have more manpower, more money, more resources. YES, they could do much more. Why? Because they have more manpower, more resources, a large variety of employees who have worked in the industry for a while. That's what I mean. It's "my 100 builders could build this house much better than your 20 builders because we have more, but we've chosen to build different kinds of buildings". Or, my 1000 developers could work on all of your game issues simultaneously, much more efficiently than your 100 developers. Or, IN OTHER WORDS, if BI were a large AAA company, they'd be able to do a whole lot more in regards to improvements to the engine, if not make a completely new engine from the ground up that uses the same file formats and such. Is that acceptable to you? Because obviously you and Neurofunker believe that BI has the most skilled developers in the world. Yeah, I doubt that. BI's engine, and it's vast simulation, isn't a product of the skill of BI's devs. It's a product of the choice to make the engine a simulation engine. You're not being a pragmatist. You're being naive. You act as if every FPS/TPS developer is just trying to make a military simulator, but can't because they aren't skilled enough. That's a very naive and childish notion (and I don't care how old you are). COD is an arcade shooter, not because IW/Treyarch don't have the ability to make it anything else, but because that's what they've CHOSEN to do. EA has their Frostbite engine that's built for an arcade game with vehicles and Hollywood destruction, not because they can't make BF4 a simulator, but because they CHOSE TO! That is not ridiculous! That is simply a FACT!

DAYZ has steamrolled NOTHING. They are Steam top seller, but in no way have they surpassed the amount of money that AAA games have brought in on PC, not to mention on consoles as well. And it's not as if they are making a dent in the arcade shooter market. Drop this delusion that BI is the most profitable, most skilled group of developers in the world. Drop this delusion that AAA developers can't make a simulator. Drop this delusion that simulators are the most profitable gaming genre. They are not. DAYZ is not popular because it's built on the RV engine. It's popular because it's a survival game WITH ZOMBIES. People aren't flocking to that game because it's a simulator. I'm pretty sure Activision and EA have proven that there's more financial reward in arcade shooters. COD is a billion-dollar franchise, and from 2009 till now COD has been the best selling game period. It only got beat this past year. Neither Arma nor DayZ is anywhere near that. And no matter how dull COD gets, it will continue to sell very well because it caters to a very popular market. And, no, the people who buy those games are no dumber that some people who buy Arma. They buy those games because they prefer those games. It's not player apathy. It's not some mental fault of theirs to choose COD/BF over Arma. You aren't somehow smarter for playing Arma over those games. People continually put up with this 12-year old RV engine, yet they aren't considered apathetic.

What pisses me off is when people dismiss logical, factual statements because they want to further this elitist idea that their game/developer preferences are superior to others' simply because it's their preference.

Edited by antoineflemming

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, I'm pretty sure we're all talking about the same thing. Properly accurate fire geometry is essential to a balanced and realistic portrayal of body armor (you know, like helmets that only cover the top of your head not protecting your entire face) and if the engine isn't in a place where detailed hit detection based on armor type can be implemented, it's probably not a good idea to shove some poorly thought out alternative system in there (helmets covering your face). I don't know what the rolleyes was for since I was using Oukej's statement as evidence that the engine isn't where it needs to be and perhaps an example of Bohemia's ambitions running away with them.
To me the conundrum at that point is that in lieu of "properly accurate fire geometry", right now it doesn't seem like there's even "some poorly thought out alternative system in there".
I guess that's the kind of problem you run into when you don't keep up with advancements in the industry over the course of a decade.
Heh, that's an interesting way to look at it considering how little of that decade they seemed to 'have to themselves', at least based on a timeline Maruk gave around the time of Arma 3's announcement, in the sense of Arma 2 was the first game where unlike Arma 1 they weren't 'having' to put a game out there "relatively quickly, within a budget and most importantly on time"... the way that they did with Arma 3. D'oh!

(I don't know if you'd agree with me or not, but I've tended to feel for months now that Maruk gave Rocket far, far greater leeway in DayZ standalone development than DnA had with Arma 3 "re-development" after whatever happened in the winter of 2012.)

This. Also, we really shouldn't be talking about RTI and VBS at all since they are completely different products from Arma and aren't even really supposed to be games. They are tools with specific purposes demanded by the organizations that contract with the companies that make them.
Moreover, it wouldn't have been just a case of "engine vs. engine"... RTI could have had the seemingly superior engine and yet still been found wanting on requirements. Keep in mind, readers, that BISim's "we provide this specific item and are paid for that specific item" business model makes a world of difference compared to 'regular' BI's "we make what we will and you either buy it or don't".
I'd be very interested in hearing what that criteria was. I remember when some military bigwig made the statement that he wanted to move away from RV and towards something that played and looked like CoD -pretty funny actually, Ill try and find that interview.
While this is a BISim dev's perspective, Vandrel weighed in, and the most interesting and least 'technical' of his remarks in that post was this telling line: "Units want "here and now" not "see ya in 10 months" once you figure it out." Edited by Chortles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Antoine: Man, Im worried about your blood pressure :butbut:

Like I said, big companies + bigger budgets doesn't always equal better product. Those AAA title programmers are often bound by men with larger paystubs and not allowed to branch out creatively. Timelines, streamlining for maximum sales including console-izng, monstrous licensing fees and more all become factors then. CoD has that manpower and what we currently see is all they have to show for it? Yes they have more money to throw at their engine -geared for their game -are they making momentous strides, leaps and bounds with their engines? You call me naive, yet people here constantly scream "New engine! Cryengine!Outerra! Frostbite" -but these engines are made, like you said, for that specific game...now who's naive?

So no, I don't think they can do it better based soley off their tax bracket. If that were the case, they could steamroll every creative game that has ever come out ie Minecraft, due soley to their fat pockets and manpower. If lumping me in with others and implying "fanbois!!" makes you feel better, well, I hope you feel better.

Edit: As for your hysterical edit, fully disagree about why people play DayZ. As far as your CoD point, well lets just see who tops the music charts every week and you'll get my drift..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@Antoine: Man, Im worried about your blood pressure :butbut:

Like I said, big companies + bigger budgets doesn't always equal better product. Those AAA title programmers are often bound by men with larger paystubs and not allowed to branch out creatively. Timelines, streamlining for maximum sales including console-izng, monstrous licensing fees and more all become factors then. CoD has that manpower and what we currently see is all they have to show for it? Yes they have more money to throw at their engine -geared for their game -are they making momentous strides, leaps and bounds with their engines? You call me naive, yet people here constantly scream "New engine! Cryengine!Outerra! Frostbite" -but these engines are made, like you said, for that specific game...now who's naive?

So no, I don't think they can do it better based soley off their tax bracket. If that were the case, they could steamroll every creative game that has ever come out ie Minecraft, due soley to their fat pockets and manpower. If lumping me in with others and implying "fanbois!!" makes you feel better, well, I hope you feel better.

It's not the engine in it's current state that would make a AAA developer more able to make a better engine. It's not the tax bracket. Again, everythings up to choice, and my point is that if a AAA developer from the top decided to make a game on an engine that had ALL the features of the RV engine, that they'd be able to do that much better than BI because they have more people to work on different parts, and probably access to a wider variety of talent. Frostbite or Outerra or Cryengine aren't better. But they'd probably be able to turn those engines into RV clones if they wanted to, simply because they have more manpower that can work on different parts of the engine. Again, the other way to look at it is that if BI had the number of employees of DICE or IW or Treyarch, I bet it'd be a lot easier for them to address multiple issues. That's not illogical. A couple of people working on specific parts of the game can only do so much at a time. It's not a ridiculous notion. It's ridiculous to suggest the opposite. Oh, and people who simply scream CryEngine, Outerra, Frostbit, Unreal Engine are naive as well. I'm not one of them. Because I don't want one of those engines. I want the RV engine to be improved, and if it can't be improved, then I want it to be rebuilt from the ground up. I'd be up for foregoing an Arma 4 until major improvements are made to RV or until it's remade. To put it simply, I don't want to look at another tree in Arma and watch my FPS drop simply because I'm looking at a tree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Food for thought: Who's the bigger fool, the Arma player who keeps hoping that maybe BI will have finally "gotten their act together" (however the Arma player defines it) or the COD player who actually got what they were intending to pay for? ;)

Re: antoineflemming: I'm distinctly reminded about DM remarking back around the time of the game's "beta" phase (late June 2013) that BI only had so many personnel, although Arma 3 still the noticeable majority of devs, but even fewer programmers... and then of course, I'm also reminded of how much "feature backtracking" began even before the winter of 2012 and then the infamy of summer and autumn 2013...

P.S. Vandrel's anecdote about development time on CE3 Dev Kit actually reminds me of some complaints about Make Arma Not War, specifically perceived-as-still-lacking official documentation (whether it be on content mods, certain mission creation aspects, how certain scripts work, et al.) making things so that people were essentially still having to learn to "play it by ear", despite dev-started threads on new config guidelines for previously trained Arma 2 modders instead of brand-new, start-to-finish "working from no Arma modding knowledge whatsoever to getting content into the game" tutorials.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OFP had 10 people with a $600,000 budget. Now that has increased 6-10 fold, has the engine development increased relative to this? Has the enjoyment increased as well, 6-10 better? I'm not sure your getting my point. And you can't say with certainty that those individual engines are capable of doing everything RV does how could you possibly know? For instance, my BF2 example of Ai not being able to respond outside of the original small map -that may very well be an engine limitation. Has anyone made a mod on these engines that has even rudimentary squad level combat with working AI? I'm not being facetious I just really want to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And you can't say with certainty that those individual engines are capable of doing everything RV does how could you possibly know? For instance, my BF2 example of Ai not being able to respond outside of the original small map -that may very well be an engine limitation. Has anyone made a mod on these engines that has even rudimentary squad level combat with working AI? I'm not being facetious I just really want to know.
Practically speaking, whether or not the individual engines are capable 'out-of-the-box' is irrelevant, since the publisher interest in even trying just isn't there. Heck, I'd point out that much of the Internet backlash against BF4 has practically nothing to do with it not pushing boundaries or not being a milsim, but rather at "the delivered BF4" failing at even providing "a working arcade shooter experience"... it sure sounds to me like the customers know what they want.

By the way, did you see Vandrel's post? What stood out to me was that other than the .raw/GIS anecdote, very little of the described differences seemed to have analogues in Arma vs. a hypothetical commercial competitor, hence my remarks about RTI 'failing' for reasons besides "engine vs. engine". Heck, I'd find it hilarious if, irony of ironies, BISim was actually "the AAA company of would-be simulator providers" in comparison to RTI and Havok-and-its-partners...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Practically speaking, whether or not the individual engines are capable 'out-of-the-box' is irrelevant, since the publisher interest in even trying just isn't there. Heck, I'd point out that much of the Internet backlash against BF4 has practically nothing to do with it not pushing boundaries or not being a milsim, but rather at "the delivered BF4" failing at even providing "a working arcade shooter experience"... it sure sounds to me like the customers know what they want.

Have noticed that many BF players also use the "Your just a CoD" kiddie expression so Im thinking they also have an 'elitest' in them as well. Well whatever their gripe was, it just goes to show that mad bank don't always equal happy ending.

Heck, I'd find it hilarious if, irony of ironies, BISim was actually "the AAA company of would-be simulator providers" in comparison to RTI and Havok-and-its-partners...

That is funny :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have noticed that many BF players also use the "Your just a CoD" kiddie expression so Im thinking they also have an 'elitest' in them as well.
Ironically, that is why I as an Arma player don't use "you're just a BF/CoD kiddie"... unfortunately, your bit about "mad bank don't always equal happy ending"... I must respond like the notorious quote by a NVA colonel to an American colonel: "That may be true, but it is also irrelevant."
That is funny :D
That not-quite-a-joke was in the context of this article about the Games For Training (GFT) recompete that led to what's now known as VBS3, specifically the Havok VP remarking that the graphics fidelity of the existing simulators was so low as to be immersion-breaking for current soldiers, but then declaring about requests for proposal (RFP) that sometimes "the RFP is designed for older technology to win, and that’s a shame"... which could be taken as a knock on BISim/VBS, considering that Havok pulled out with said VP being quoted as declaring that "“We felt that it favored Bohemia and it didn’t make sense for us to continue." (BISim CEO Peter Morrison's rebuttal that BISim had had to step up their game and improve VBS2 to meet the requirements is besides the point.)

Those quotes may come off as sour grapes, but I found both Vandrel's remark and the aforementioned quotes by the Havok VP to be telling, insofar as "how can a seemingly superior engine still 'lose' to the nominally inferior one?" to which I'd answer "it's not the engines themselves that are competing but rather the products built on those engines AND additional services besides providing the product". I might even go further and jokingly compare BISim to Microsoft, with Havok/RTI compared to Apple-in-the-pre-iPod-days, if that would best illustrate one possible advantage for BISim (and why I'd make an "AAA company" remark about BISim)...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

surprised a dev hasn't posted on this forum yet they could quite easily put an end to this conversation by giving some info

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then use logic. For what reason would I make the implication that BI is also a huge company? It has no bearing on my statement whatsoever. Yet you choose to focus on semantics to a ridiculous level which compels me to ridicule your legalese.

I don't know why you would make that implication, but you actually went further than that and outright stated such. I quoted it, remember? It is also highly relevant to your statement, since the fact that BIS is not large and other companies are is what would give those other companies an advantage. We aren't talking about semantics here; we're talking about whether you understand the core concepts of the arguments people are making.

To me the conundrum at that point is that in lieu of "properly accurate fire geometry", right now it doesn't seem like there's even "some poorly thought out alternative system in there".

I consider the fact that BIS decided to implement armor without proper hit detection a pretty poorly thought out alternative. It leads to things like armor protecting areas that armor isn't covering, like plate carriers protecting the entire torso and helmets protecting the entire head. It makes body armor more protective than it should be and is pretty frustrating as well.

I guess it sort of comes down to opinion and how much each individual is willing to put up with. Either way, it's definitely not doing it right the first time and the problem with that is there's no guarantee that it will be done right at all.

Has anyone made a mod on these engines that has even rudimentary squad level combat with working AI? I'm not being facetious I just really want to know.

This here displays a pretty big lack of understanding of how companies using licensed game engines work. It's not like making a mod. If some aspect of the engine as delivered is doing what you want it to do, quite often you can go in change stuff

around. It's like saying, "Gee, you could never have a squad based shooter, MMO, turn based strategy, RTS, action RPG, or military shooter on that Unreal Tournament engine."

Edit: You know that no one is using the BF2 engine anymore, right? Like, it's dead and gone.

Edited by roshnak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
surprised a dev hasn't posted on this forum yet they could quite easily put an end to this conversation by giving some info

they had years to address or solve these issues.. don't hold your breathe for a response lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering how devs' prior comments in prior threads (and even my mention of oukej's remark about fire geometry for vests not being doable as of about two weeks ago) were received back in the day... they shouldn't bother, their comments would just be more fuel for the fire. :rolleyes:

I consider the fact that BIS decided to implement armor without proper hit detection a pretty poorly thought out alternative. It leads to things like armor protecting areas that armor isn't covering, like plate carriers protecting the entire torso and helmets protecting the entire head. It makes body armor more protective than it should be and is pretty frustrating as well.
So your preference in lieu of "fire geometry for vests" would be to just reuse the pre-existing Arma 2 mechanics on this front? As it stands, what the issue came down to for some players was simply "how many bullets does it take to down someone" moreso than any armor specifics.
I guess it sort of comes down to opinion and how much each individual is willing to put up with.
I'll agree here... although, in all honesty Arma 3 is the first in the series where I "play for playing's sake" and not just for trying out mods or laughing at how badly things can go wrong. I suppose that I'll agree with rehtus777 in that "]The ArmA 3 game mechanics have spoiled me.... for that matter, I can barely play ArmA 2. The game mechanics drive me nuts now. :p I have to use All In Arma to play it anymore." (Or for me, to test Arma 2 mods in that game.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So your preference in lieu of "fire geometry for vests" would be to just reuse the pre-existing Arma 2 mechanics on this front? As it stands, what the issue came down to for some players was simply "how many bullets does it take to down someone" moreso than any armor specifics.I'll agree here... although, in all honesty Arma 3 is the first in the series where I "play for playing's sake" and not just for trying out mods or laughing at how badly things can go wrong. I suppose that I'll agree with rehtus777 in that "]The ArmA 3 game mechanics have spoiled me.... for that matter, I can barely play ArmA 2. The game mechanics drive me nuts now. :p I have to use All In Arma to play it anymore." (Or for me, to test Arma 2 mods in that game.)

Yeah that would be my preference. The reason people are concerned about how many bullets it takes to kill someone is because of the way the armor mechanic works. Basically, the bullet stopping mechanics of the armor are being triggered more than they should because the effect is being applied to the whole torso instead of just the area that bullet-proof inserts would be covering. So body armor is realistically stopping bullets, but it's stopping it in an area larger than it should be. Although, to be honest, the whole armor system causes a lot of problems with the ability to stop threats, since it makes it harder to kill people but non-lethal wounds are basically meaningless. So, yeah, the whole system isn't really very well thought out from a gameplay perspective.

And yeah, the improved movement alone means I can't go back to Arma 2, and I don't hate Arma 3, I just don't think it's as good as it should be. I know it's not necessarily all Bohemia's fault that the game is in the state it is, but that doesn't really make the end result any more satisfying to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
surprised a dev hasn't posted on this forum yet they could quite easily put an end to this conversation by giving some info

what should they reply? I like all thus: bis respond! Threads/posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My biggest gripe with the armor system (other than that I hated the prior patch's overprotection for PvP) was that it was just rushed into the main build without really being tested out in the dev build and tweaked, then they went on a 1 month siesta.

It wasn't the poor execution of the new system so much as the improper rollout. This is why we have a dev branch, so everyone doesn't have to beta test some new system that isn't doing what it should or balanced like the preexisting one.

Honestly I don't think most people would've cared that the fire geometry wasn't implemented had they not totally changed damage-rotection values and resultingly changed the gameplay experience (for the worse in most people's view). That issue came up mostly over helmets, because now they were magical bullet stoppers and people wanted a way around (or out) of that new protection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, before introducing an armor system, why not start with something as basic as the netcode? It's both hilarious and a little sad that a game with such scale (unreplicated in any other modern shooter) utterly breaks down once you get more than a hundred people into a server. So much squandered potential there.

Armor systems are nice dessert but proper netcode and large servers should be the main course.

Edited by RangerPL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.. unfortunately, your bit about "mad bank don't always equal happy ending"... I must respond like the notorious quote by a NVA colonel to an American colonel: "That may be true, but it is also irrelevant."

It's very relevant to the statement that had me jump in here in the first place:

No, what you mean is that there is no other developer, with another engine, that's chosen to do all the things that Arma does. I would expect, that if a AAA developer with a current gen engine chose to make a competitor to Arma, that they'd have more success. BI's engine is outdated, and their company is fairly small.

As I've already stated, larger, better funded companies does not necessitate a better product -especially if it's out of their normal scope and area of expertise.

I don't know why you would make that implication, but you actually went further than that and outright stated such. I quoted it, remember? It is also highly relevant to your statement, since the fact that BIS is not large and other companies are is what would give those other companies an advantage. We aren't talking about semantics here; we're talking about whether you understand the core concepts of the arguments people are making.

.

I've already explained that as I was paraphrasing the post above, I meant it in this manner "If another,bigger company...." -if you can't understand that, well than I just can't help you. I jumped in here because that initial statement above came across as flippant and patronizing and there is zero evidence to back that up. People can insist for the shiny new engine as much as they want, but theres also zero indication that BI is looking in that direction and while that may compel some to declare that is BI's doom -I suspect they'll still be around regardless of a few forumites business instincts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hehe, I do judge the general gamers extreme apathy and acceptance of mediocrity -but thats just me.

well i'm not a fan of it either but each to their own. i guess i'm more tolerant :p

If it's anyone who should be clamoring for a new engine -it's DR fans..

is there really such a thing? a DR fan? lol. also is it not possible to talk about other games/engines without the whole finger pointing. at least i personally bring them up to make a point about RV not to suggest that BI should switch.

When I speak of Arma's scale I mean both the terrain size, the amount of potential (yup exactly) units as well as the ability to control many if not all of them thru either direct or indirect means in a 3d world. I own JC2 and have only played it a few times but I don't recall that exactly fitting the bill

you are kind of missing the point of the discussion here though. i'm myself used to arma's FPS numbers but you again confuse having an actual smooth experience and simply being able to place a lot of units. i understand why arma is not very stable but i also acknowledge the fact that it is.

also to be clear. these other games have a lot of other things going on too. it's silly acting like placing AI groups in the editor is such a huge task if that is basically the only thing really happening. the whole core usage debate shows that arma could be very smooth if AI could be done by another core and not the same that does all the rest. then the hypothetical and potential scenarios you describe could actually be pulled off while running like pretty much every other game out there.

so you are kind of missing the point here if you think what arma actually pulls off right now with actual smoothnes and not just playability is all the engine can really do.

hence my point about codemaster's numbers. not because i admire them or anything...hell no ;) but give them that. at least their shitty game ran smoothly. and hell was it shitty. i didn't even finish the demo.

i share your admiration for RV but don't let it cloud your judgement. when i brought up frostbite i did it merely as an example because it's not just arma but small. it does many other things that arma doesn't which totally justify it being smaller. you can do the same comparison with other engines too. it's just the main principle of balancing and prioritizing resources.

my whole point is that that is what arma is bad at. there is the arma definition of pulling it off and then their is the universial one.

you talk a lot about competition being needed but at the same time are a bit overly defensive. a flaw is a flaw. period. it's a bit childish to be like

A: "hey this sucks about arma"

B: "well but this sucks about game X".

who the fuck cares? i also disagree with people saying BI need to just switch engines. it's nonsense. what they need to do is really start touching the core and not shying away and putting some shiny coat on the outside every release.

Although I'm not a Dayz fan myself, it's actually a good things as it introduces more players to the type of gaming we enjoy. People may actually like the feeling of 1 bullet = death

dayZ =/= arma at all. it's not at all about how many bullets kill, besides it being not one bullet at all. especially in arma 3. it's entirely about "PD". and actually "PD" is the wrong term. it's about perma loss of gear. that core aspect has nothing to do with arma.

yes "PD" kept people playing but the scenario is what drew most to it. you can see that by the kind of suggestions that were being made on the dayZ forums when it was still a mod (and probably still).

As I've already stated, larger, better funded companies does not necessitate a better product -especially if it's out of their normal scope and area of expertise.

you are really stuck on this ideology. as if BI having more money would turn arma into battlefield. it's quite silly. the problem with so called AAA companies is not passion of single devs or their skill. it's the general direction the company as a coorperation goes to which is mainly making more money.

that does not automatically mean money wouldn't make a product better. all the kickstarters prove that view wrong entirely. it's only about who calls the shots. people have to be paid. you must've missed all the BI dev posts naming lack of resources as the reason for certain features not being in the game...

Edited by Bad Benson
spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
strawmen's argument - all the recent posts

What you fail to grasp, for one reason or another is the follwoing:

1. Just because RV engine is capable of doing something, that doesn't automatically mean it is the only engine out there capable of it, nor that other engines couldn't do the exact same thing. You already said you need to be proven otherwise you don't really believe it. Each with it's own i suppose.

2. Just because RV engine is capable of doing something (read AI, huge sized terrain, etc) doesn't mean it does it well. My own view on the subject is that A3 is the proof that RV cannot handle quite everything it is being trown at it. Poor performance, unable to scale correctly, physx errors, random crashes etc is just to start with.

Nowhere have i said RV engine should be scraped (looney idea most likely coming from people who have nothing to do with this industry), or replaced with engine X or Y. What i am saying is that while you keep repeating the same thing over and over again (and others as well, NeuroFunker who seems to be very vocal in his own ignorance), stating that this engine does wonders and it is the perfect fit for this sort of game. It might be, but just like you, i don't quite believe it unless i see it actually work correctly. And even now, after patch 1.10, it doesn't quite work as it should, does it?

And before you open the talk about FPS, no, i don't want it to run at a solid 60FPS on ultra settings, but i want it to work at above, and most importantly stable 45FPS on any fucking settings, without stutters, without huge dips due to weird constant HDD (even if it is a SSD) stream of data...

3. Even after the updated to DX10/11, for a game released in 2013, it's far from shoulder to shoulder with other engines out there. And i am not even talking about DX11 features here, i am talking about being able to have more than 1 light source casting shadows at a single time. Have it forward rendered or deffered rendered, i couldn't care less. Having GPU soft shadows instead of CPU stencil shadows. Having a game that can use RAM available (up to 4gb if 32bit binaries is used) the way it should be: as a buffer instead of grabbing all the data directly from HDD.

4. I know that there is no alternative to Arma. But that hardly makes anywhere near perfect. And while you and others are saying that is a good thing, because BI actually cares about their community and other similar stuff, unlike other developers out there interested only in the financial aspect, you might also forget that a bit of competition makes this world go around.

Don't get me wrong, i like the game or i wouldn't be sticking about, but forcing the same reply time after time, that this game and it's engine are in perfect relation, and there is hardly anything to do about it, because it achieves so much, is just, from my own pov, wrong way to think about things.

I for one would have preferred a game that works, maybe with less bells and whistles if that would have meant less headaches altogether. And since this game is constantly supported by the modding community (who hardly gets their questions answered - and i am not evet talking about holding their hands here), let them push the boundaries.

But as it is, it seems that BI is trying to sell some jewelry in a soggy old and wore sock. No one asks them to chage the fucking sock with a different one, but have the courtesy to saw the sucker before trying to sell it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
w

is there really such a thing? a DR fan? lol. also is it not possible to talk about other games/engines without the whole finger pointing. at least i personally bring them up to make a point about RV not to suggest that BI should switch.

.

That was a joke as the game was obviously utter fail although there intial plans were compelling.

also to be clear. these other games have a lot of other things going on too. it's silly acting like placing AI groups in the editor is such a huge task if that is basically the only thing really happening. the whole core usage debate shows that arma could be very smooth if AI could be done by another core and not the same that does all the rest. then the hypothetical and potential scenarios you describe could actually be pulled off while running like pretty much every other game out there.

Not in the way that I prefer. I'm not just talking military, I'm talking about an FPS style game be it army, cops and robbers, or medieval melee in which i can place units anywhere on the map with tons of editor options and have it play out in a non player-centric way. If you know of any, i'm all ears and my wallet is ready. As far as i know, this is unique to this series and why I care about it so much. You even have some of the same posters here advocating for removal of the player centric aspect, so you can be damned sure ill speak in opposition. Not as a defender of BI, it's to preserve my own self interest.

you talk a lot about competition being needed but at the same time are a bit overly defensive. a flaw is a flaw. period. it's a bit childish to be like

A: "hey this sucks about arma"

B: "well but this sucks about game X".

who the fuck cares?

Well sure, when you paraphrase like that, you can make anyone look like a douche -trust me, I could do it also. it's not about being a weepy defender of BI, if i state whats wrong with the game but also qualify and point out the flaws in the name of fairness, thats not being childish, the contrary really, it's called nuance and balanced opinion. Sure there may be people here that defend each and every decision BI makes, I'm not one of them. On the other side of the coin there are those here that just by seeing there name in a topic thread I can't bet my monkey's banana it's gonna be an Estro rag off.

dayZ =/= arma at all. it's not at all about how many bullets kill, besides it being not one bullet at all. especially in arma 3. it's entirely about "PD". and actually "PD" is the wrong term. it's about perma loss of gear. that core aspect has nothing to do with arma.

yes "PD" kept people playing but the scenario is what drew most to it. you can see that by the kind of suggestions that were being made on the dayZ forums when it was still a mod (and probably still).

Entirely speculatory opinion and generalization. The reasons GuyA likes DayZ may be completely different than GuyB. Just so you know the guys I tried to get into Arma who hated it but loved DayZ brought up that point of lethality.

you are really stuck on this ideology. as if BI having more money would turn arma into battlefield. it's quite silly. the problem with so called AAA companies is not passion of single devs or their skill. it's the general direction the company as a coorperation goes to which is mainly making more money.

that does not automatically mean money wouldn't make a product better. all the kickstarters prove that view wrong entirely. it's only about who calls the shots. people have to be paid. you must've missed all the BI dev posts naming lack of resources as the reason for certain features not being in the game...

Funny that you wanna jump down my throat about this -what about the guys point I was responding to? No comment when a poster states that any AAA company would have more success than BI should they choose to compete? Im not stuck on any ideology but know thru common sense that money/manpower does not guarentee better success in an area outside you expertise against a company that already has the only established foothold. Period. I never stated BI would become Battlefield if they had more money and you know it. Case in point, look at the two FPS shooters that both Infinity Ward and DICE have made outside of their comfort zone -both mediocre at best. How could that be? They have the money, the ho's, the bling and these aren't super intricate games yet they sucked? Quantum of Silence was worse than Goldeneye BY FAR! How do you think they would do going against a game such as Arma? Thats my point and the only real point I was responding to in this thread.

Edit: @Pufu -there is no strawman's agument. The reason I keep reiterating the same point is because the actual point I'm responding to is constantly ignored. Yes, there MAY be another engine capable of it -but as the above AGAIN states, it's not as easy as any AAA company just deciding to beat BI at their own game.

Edited by froggyluv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Edit: @Pufu -there is no strawman's agument. The reason I keep reiterating the same point is because the actual point I'm responding to is constantly ignored. Yes, there MAY be another engine capable of it -but as the above AGAIN states, it's not as easy as any AAA company just deciding to beat BI at their own game.

Yet, that is besides the thread's purpose, which is BI's ambitions are always set too high. Nothing to do with AAA studios, nor other engines, is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yet, that is besides the thread's purpose, which is BI's ambitions are always set too high. Nothing to do with AAA studios, nor other engines, is it?

*sigh* That may be true but I was simply addressing a logical fallacy that was stated within this thread.... I give up

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  

×