Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
sayjimwoo

Bohemia Interactive's ambitions are always set too high.

Recommended Posts

So in other words, it's OK that they didn't tell us because we wouldn't have bought ArmA 3 if they would have, which probably would be true at least for myself until they fixed it up more. It's OK that ArmA 3 is seriously disappointing because they patch it every day, doesn't matter if the patches make it better or worse, they simply patch it every day and that makes it OK. In other words, everything is OK cause it's Bohemia Interactive apparently. Give em a pass, it's only been 12 years of the same old "wait until the next patch".... and it's OK that they bend the common accepted standards for trust, ethics and business, they're BI. That's pretty much all I hear from you is basically, They're BI, It's OK!

Funny thing is, most of your points are your own personal feelings you extrapolate from things people say, like I never said they lied to us or stole our money, yet you extrapolate that from what I said, that the way they went about it was bad. If you agree the example is valid and pertinent, then you must also agree that your own conclusions based on that example are valid and pertinent as well which would mean you feel the same way, you just choose to ignore it. You say it's OK because buying a game isn't personal, it's what... business? Hate to burst your bubble, I'm treating them like a business from a mildly upset consumer's perspective and that is to provide feedback and criticism about their shortcomings and faults, there's nothing personal about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recall a dev suggesting that they couldn't even talk up something they liked for fear that some forum member's "enthusiasm" is going to warp their perceptions into thinking that the dev was confirming that something -- as in, that forum member's expectation of what would be implemented -- or even mistake it for a "loose promise"... that's why you get 'fluff piece' devblogs that're vague and without details (that could possibly be used to try to "pin down" the devs) nowadays.

@ Tonci87: I believe that you underestimate the damage done to the transparency of the community-developer relationship from that "axed features" thread... it seems to have taught the devs that "not telling anything in the first place" is what they should have been doing.

EDIT: I just realized something: there actually is some disclosure and insight-giving by devs such Dwarden or Zipper5... but I've noticed that nowadays it's NOT on the BI forums but rather in other Arma community discussion threads elsewhere.

Edited by Chortles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like when my work is appreciated. When my work is appreciated, I feel good and I want to do more of it.

I don't like when my work goes unnoticed and unappreciated. When this happens repeatedly, despite hard work and improvement on my part, I begin to become unmotivated. Why should I try to improve things when no one will appreciate it and instead continuously point out weaknesses?

IMHO it's the game devs that should be personally thanking modders for trying to finish off their game for them. Have BI ever thanked you for your mods?

BI are a business, they're selling a product to a very discerning consumer. It's their duty to release a high quality finished end product, whereas you (I assume) mod as a hobby, so there's really no comparison. At the end of the day everyone wants to be recognised and appreciated, but when you have a contract to carry out a piece of work and deliver the goods then it's an obligation, not a hobby that you can back down from because not enough people tell you how wonderful you are.

Besides, it was BI themselves who created all the hype and expectation. That's a sure recipe for disaster unless you can genuinely deliver the goods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think some on here forget, BI are a business producing a product, that product should be complete and usable for the intended purpose i.e. clean no bugs. Lets leave content and performance to one side, just plain work without problems, across the board.

Having a members club, or community if you like, is not some clause that you can use to say, its o.k. they’ll understand, we’ll do what we always do, that’s release patches for the next three or four years.

When your lucky enough to get a supporters or owners club for your product, then you should work even harder to keep that loyalty, not take it for granted.

I talk from experience, albeit on a vastly smaller scale, but still an influence on how your business performs, you want (need) to keep that loyalty, word of mouth is very important, or certainly was for our product, its even more important nowadays, because word of mouth ‘is the internet’ via forums, groups, clans, gamers in general, reviews (factual one’s), etc.

I think what BI did just over a decade ago was commendable in its vision, they were the first to do this type of thing in such a way. Some are only now, beginning to open their eyes and see how great it was, they led the way earlier than more or less anyone else.

But that does not bare any influence now, well over a decade down the road. A2 at 1.62/1.63 is just about right (for me at least, not for some), a great game, o.k. movement could be better, but we bought what we saw. But we bought it thinking they were learning from earlier mistakes, but even that took years to correct properly.

Now with A3 you would think they would take all that from A2 and learn, no, it’s the same again, bugs, unplayable for some, the mp side really needs some work. Why didn’t they learn, why do they take for granted their community, I don’t count myself in that , here, as I have not been here that long on the 'official' forum. But I've been in a group playing the game regular since Arma came out, so am part of their wider playing community, but also had ofp & Elite, although really only messed around with elite, left ofp.

When Arma came out, it became a part of my hobby (wargaming). I have bought soo many of their products, I like supporting them, CC terrible game, for me, but many love it. OFP & Elite I had both at the time, but as said, only played elite in the editor, why, because it was playable straight out the box. Arma, A2, OA, plus all the dlc bits PMC/BAF/ACR etc. TOH, TOM, then, because Steam was required and it was convenient, I bought the Gold edition of the early games, just for supports sake, don’t play them, but its there. I don't even play their campaigns, its just the format of the game that is important to me, the all important 'Editor'.

Iron Front. o.k. not theirs but still an offspring if you like, VBS2 TBK UK edition (that was free). Then onto A3 at Alpha again on a supporters basis albeit the one below 'EED' or 'EDD' or whatever it was called. And here we are, a product that is working but needs repair desperately in some areas. Well over a decade down the road and its still the main topic, bugs, performance.

Defend them if you must, but I come from the tradition of, it should be fit for purpose when its sold to you, for years of enjoyment, not frustration.. This community is just one of many, that have the same issues with the product, but still stick around because there is nowhere else to go for the same genre, at the moment. That’s probably why they can take their players, not community, players 'in general' for granted.

Roll on competition, then BI, well they’ll have to up their game somewhat, even though they were the first, means nothing in business much, especially when loyalty seems to flow one way. Oh, and patching a product to work properly is not loyalty, just for anyone that may take the stance that from that viewpoint BI are loyal. They are loyal in other ways, yes, but the fundamental basis is for the product to work, correctly, for what it was made, in A3's case probably MP, more than anything else.

Edited by ChrisB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have BI ever thanked you for your mods?

Yes.

10 chars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
?????

10 character minimum to post, most people put like 5char or 10char to mean "my post was to short for the minimum" and to get around it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
when you have a contract to carry out a piece of work and deliver the goods then it's an obligation, not a hobby that you can back down from because not enough people tell you how wonderful you are.
And right here is an example of someone who fundamentally mischaracterizes the relationship between BI and the player base even worse than some others before him had in this thread.

If anything, the game probably released in this state because of "a contract to carry out a piece of work and deliver the goods" and "an obligation".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In what sense? Admittedly such an explanation isn't supposed to magically "make anything better"...

It's difficult to have much, if any, sympathy for a company that so horribly mismanages a project that it has to rush an incomplete product out the door. Especially if they don't even have a publisher to blame (although they can lay some blame on Greece, I guess).

But I didn't follow the Arma 3 development as closely as some other people did, and the only problem I was aware of existing is the Greece stuff.

And right here is an example of someone who fundamentally mischaracterizes the relationship between BI and the player base even worse than some others before him had in this thread.

If anything, the game probably released in this state because of "a contract to carry out a piece of work and deliver the goods" and "an obligation".

How do you figure this is a mischaracterization? They do have a contract with their customers to deliver a product. I don't personally think that criticism on their forums is making them not want to work on the game, but if it is, they need to suck it up because they are getting paid.

I also feel like some people are exaggerating the negativity of much of the community. Most criticisms take care to express enjoyment of the game or series as a whole. It's not common that someone shows up and says the game is terrible or anything. I think sometimes people can sound more negative or harsh than they intend because someone inevitably shows up to shout down criticism and it kind of drives things to extremes.

It's also important to note that most people don't post a lot of positive feedback because there isn't much more to add after you say, "I like X." There's not a lot of discussion that can follow that unless someone disagrees and dislikes it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's difficult to have much, if any, sympathy for a company that so horribly mismanages a project that it has to rush an incomplete product out the door. Especially if they don't even have a publisher to blame (although they can lay some blame on Greece, I guess).
Funny thing is, what I've been alluding to is that the devs do have a publisher to blame... it's also called Bohemia Interactive. ;)
But I didn't follow the Arma 3 development as closely as some other people did, and the only problem I was aware of existing is the Greece stuff.
The devs have understandably brought up Greece a bunch, but some have also vaguely alluded that that was compounding other difficulties that were not elaborated on. While the official campaign-delay devblog had the project lead and creative developer admit to Arma 3 being "the first large project we've run this way" (with the so-called "alpha/beta" phases of Steam Early Access release) and to not foreseeing the difficulty/impact of "directly supporting the Alpha and Beta" (that is, day-to-day support alongside public development in 2013) on their internal milestones, the closest they got to actually elaborating on development problems was that "As mentioned above, the project has experienced fundamental changes in terms of its vision, scope, scale, and setting. Put frankly, almost two years of work related to the original direction was binned. Through a process of playing, evaluating, and honest reflection, we found that the original plan was not headed towards what we expected from a legitimate Arma sequel."

(Note that DnA became project lead around the time of the Greece stuff, so it seemed to me like the problems stretched further back than his tenure.)

How do you figure this is a mischaracterization? They do have a contract with their customers to deliver a product.
Yeeeeah, see, that's based on the assumption that the players are who BI has a contract with... as opposed to, say, with Valve.

What BI does is a publish a game which is distributed wherever (via Steam keys) and then players either buy it or don't; there's no contractual relationship unless one actually acquires an Arma 3 license for one's Steam account. If you wanted an actual contract as a customer for a product to be delivered, go ask BISim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Funny thing is, what I've been alluding to is that the devs do have a publisher to blame... it's also called Bohemia Interactive. ;)

Well, the whole point of self-publishing is that you aren't beholden to someone else - and a higher share of the profits, of course. So the only real reason BIS would have had to release the game unfinished is if the alternative was if they had literally no other choice. It's not like a publisher would be sitting there saying, "We don't care if you need 6 months to finish the game; we want it out by the holiday season so we can get more money."

Yeeeeah, see, that's based on the assumption that the players are who BI has a contract with... as opposed to, say, with Valve.

What BI does is a publish a game which is distributed wherever (via Steam keys) and then players either buy it or don't; there's no contractual relationship unless one actually acquires an Arma 3 license for one's Steam account. If you wanted an actual contract as a customer for a product to be delivered, go ask BISim.

I'm not sure I understand this logic. It's like saying that a publisher actually has a contract with Gamestop or something. It would be like if you got a bad computer part from whatever computer warehouse is in your area and then the manufacturer saying, "Don't blame me, I just made the thing."

I'm not necessarily talking about a contract in the legal sense, here. I'm saying that when a company takes your money in exchange for a product, they have an ethical responsibility to deliver the best product they can. This isn't usually true in video games, though, because it can only be true as long as customers hold companies to this standard, which people who buy video games usually don't. You wouldn't usually pre-order a table, and if you got a table you weren't happy with, you would expect the manufacturer to give you a refund. People who would be up in arms over a being sold a knife set that doesn't cut well, when given a $60 video game they aren't happy with, will just say, "Oh, well."

Anyway, this is getting into a broader discussion of business practices in the video game industry than is really relevant, except that a few people on these forums throw around the word "entitled" like it's the worst thing in the world, but it's important to remember that we are all paying customers, and as such, we are entitled to a certain level of service (not that I think BIS have anything but the best intentions toward their customers).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This pretty much sums up how I feel about most of your logic and arguments Chortles. It's always the same, You understand so it's OK followed by some sort of half rational point about how some developer said X statement and you feel that makes everything acceptable because you base what's acceptable on your faulty circular logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And in turn, Windies, what I've thought of most of your posting is that "the door away from Arma is that-a-way and you've got a foot out there." You said it yourself:

Then it's destined to die and ArmA 3 was a poor mans hurrah I guess. I dunno what else to say. I guess it was just a way to infuse startup funds into DayZ
If you don't know what else to say, what in turn am I "supposed" to say?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would venture to say that a patch a day is pretty high if not the highest standard of "level of service" as the videogame industry has to offer. Some of you guys should grab a copy of X:Rebirth, check out their "level of service" to realize just how much of a 1st World problem this really is :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So in other words, it's OK that they didn't tell us because we wouldn't have bought ArmA 3 if they would have, which probably would be true at least for myself until they fixed it up more. It's OK that ArmA 3 is seriously disappointing because they patch it every day, doesn't matter if the patches make it better or worse, they simply patch it every day and that makes it OK. In other words, everything is OK cause it's Bohemia Interactive apparently. Give em a pass, it's only been 12 years of the same old "wait until the next patch".... and it's OK that they bend the common accepted standards for trust, ethics and business, they're BI. That's pretty much all I hear from you is basically, They're BI, It's OK!

No Windies, I am not saying its just okay. What I am saying is, to me the whole "I feel betrayed! BI has done me wrong! yadayada" is just getting beyond pointless, and I am guessing even counter productive. How long is one to hold a grudge for. Isn't it time to move on?
Funny thing is, most of your points are your own personal feelings you extrapolate from things people say, like I never said they lied to us or stole our money, yet you extrapolate that from what I said, that the way they went about it was bad.

Yes I am doing exactly that. Please don't think I am targeting you personally in that last paragraph. I am just discussing (or rambling) about how I perceive the situation. You never said they lied or stole your money, but other people have. And I am expressing my feelings about that. I don't believe I ever said you said anything that you didn't say:). If I did I apologize.

If you want me to focus in only on you? Okay. You say that "how that information was released and the timing of that information" was wrong and upsetting as well as "find(ing) out from a 3rd party source". Fair enough, it wasn't a smooth process. But now what. What does being upset about it now, months after the incident, do to benefit anyone?

If you agree the example is valid and pertinent, then you must also agree that your own conclusions based on that example are valid and pertinent as well which would mean you feel the same way, you just choose to ignore it. You say it's OK because buying a game isn't personal, it's what... business? Hate to burst your bubble, I'm treating them like a business from a mildly upset consumer's perspective and that is to provide feedback and criticism about their shortcomings and faults, there's nothing personal about it.

Haha, not sure I understand that first bit. Sorry. You must be a lawyer.

As for business vs personal. Tmpression I got from you is that you are taking it personally. You seem to be upset that you had to hear of cuts from a third party and how information was passed down to you. Is that not more personal than business?

Yeeeeah, see, that's based on the assumption that the players are who BI has a contract with... as opposed to, say, with Valve.

What BI does is a publish a game which is distributed wherever (via Steam keys) and then players either buy it or don't; there's no contractual relationship unless one actually acquires an Arma 3 license for one's Steam account. If you wanted an actual contract as a customer for a product to be delivered, go ask BISim.

Yes thats more how I see it. They made a game. You bought the game. Transaction complete. Nothing more, nothing less. The game is in playable state. Further more they are working to fix gamebreaking bugs if they exist. I see no poor ethical behaviour.

You are buying a product, not a service.

Anyway, this is getting into a broader discussion of business practices in the video game industry than is really relevant, except that a few people on these forums throw around the word "entitled" like it's the worst thing in the world, but it's important to remember that we are all paying customers, and as such, we are entitled to a certain level of service (not that I think BIS have anything but the best intentions toward their customers).

See the only thing I see wrong with your logic, is that we are not paying customers. We are customers that have payed. BI is a company that has given us our product. We are not entitled to much more than that. There was no service in this purchase.

I don't personally think that criticism on their forums is making them not want to work on the game, but if it is, they need to suck it up because they are getting paid.

No its not like the devs are going "hey lets just not work on arma 3 because of all the criticism". They are still working on it. Its just that some of that passion/motivation for the work maybe is lost due to the negativity. And passion for ones work is what makes games (or any work for that matter) great.

I also feel like some people are exaggerating the negativity of much of the community. Most criticisms take care to express enjoyment of the game or series as a whole. It's not common that someone shows up and says the game is terrible or anything. I think sometimes people can sound more negative or harsh than they intend because someone inevitably shows up to shout down criticism and it kind of drives things to extremes.

Definitely possible. But when I see a string of posts like this I certainly get the impression that there is alot of negativity. Glass is half empty rather than half full. But then again things have gotten better than they were a while ago.

Have BI ever thanked you for your mods?

Make arma not war. Dayz. Appreciation and shoutouts in news blogs. Encouraging and supporting modding. Hiring modders.

Me personally, I have never released a mod, so there is no need for thanks.

But I do believe that BI appreciates its modders.

I would venture to say that a patch a day is pretty high if not the highest standard of "level of service" as the videogame industry has to offer. Some of you guys should grab a copy of X:Rebirth, check out their "level of service" to realize just how much of a 1st World problem this really is

Indeed!

Damnit this post is too long. Nobody is going to read all of it.

Edited by -Coulum-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And in turn, Windies, what I've thought of most of your posting is that "the door away from Arma is that-a-way and you've got a foot out there." You said it yourself:If you don't know what else to say, what in turn am I "supposed" to say?

So unless you blindly accept everything BI does, you're not "cut out" for ArmA then? Hey there's more of that logic... What are you supposed to say? Nothing. And that's something you obviously cannot do.

@Coulum: It's not about holding a grudge, it's about the same shoddy work every damned release and the supposed excuses that go along with it to the point that it's now a BI staple that they're games release in terrible states and they can only hope to crawl out of them post release. ArmA 3 was supposed to be different and frankly it's no more or no less buggy than ArmA 2 or ArmA on release, which is not something to be proud of exactly and just like those iterations, there's still a lot more issue's introduced post launch while a good portion of critical issue's still remain and are never fixed.

It reaches a point where enough is enough. BI made their bed, they have to lay in it. As for taking it personal, I think that you truly believe anything negative is taking something personal. I'm criticizing flaws and pointing out fact, that's all really. Instead of just sitting here and going " Oh BI I completely understand, you've had a hard road." I would rather see BI improve as a developer and actually fix their game for once rather than tossing it to their community in the hopes the community can band aid together mods to add what should honestly be in the game in a much more professional and integrated way. What you're saying, that you understand and it's OK is the opposite of that and it enables what has happened during OFP and ArmA and ArmA 2 and now ArmA 3 to keep happening in some perpetual loop. It's OK though right, I mean it's typical BI right? Yeah I really wanna advocate saying that for another 10 years :rolleyes:

Consequently, look how much dev time and polish DayZ gets in comparison. I mean yeah it's pretty moot to point out who the red headed step child is at this point, but honestly you didn't even see that kind of work and attention to detail put into ArmA and ArmA 2.

Edited by Windies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As Tonci put it, the reason people were up in arms over the axed feature's was because of how that information was released and the timing of that information, I.E. after they got our money. It's not that BI promised feature's and failed, though I'm sure there would still be some criticism, not nearly the amount and lengths of what they saw post ArmA 3 alpha/beta.

No one has a problem with a developer saying, "We want to try to implement this", but what's annoying is when you're sold something with the "loose" promise that X feature will be in and then find out 6 months later that it won't be and you find out from a 3rd party source. It just makes it look bad.

What makes that worse is when you spend months making models for the feature that is said to be in the game but 6 months later and hours and hours of work into the project, that you find out the feature will not be in game pissed me right off even though on the confirmed features its still listed after the game released and to top it off the dll tow script that I was going to use as a backup to get my trailers working now does not work in arma3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Consequently, look how much dev time and polish DayZ gets in comparison. I mean yeah it's pretty moot to point out who the red headed step child is at this point,
One thing that struck me and which I've said a few times (I don't remember if any of it was on these forums) was that DayZ standalone development basically got "when it's done" development time, i.e. shipping without any vehicles at all was Rocket's call... whereas Arma 3 apparently didn't get that level of leeway but instead was to be released within a certain period of time, even if that meant shipping without a campaign, only having one base jet at that, etc.
but honestly you didn't even see that kind of work and attention to detail put into ArmA and ArmA 2.
I ask this with all earnestness and no "rhetorical question" behind it, because I can't read your mind and I don't intend to put words in your mouth, hence this question: What did you think when you realized that "you didn't even see that kind of work and attention to detail put into ArmA and ArmA 2."?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@Coulum: It's not about holding a grudge, it's about the same shoddy work every damned release and the supposed excuses that go along with it to the point that it's now a BI staple that they're games release in terrible states and they can only hope to crawl out of them post release. ArmA 3 was supposed to be different and frankly it's no more or no less buggy than ArmA 2 or ArmA on release, which is not something to be proud of exactly and just like those iterations, there's still a lot more issue's introduced post launch while a good portion of critical issue's still remain and are never fixed.

Well, okay. If you are not holding a grudge what are you doing? And how is it helping anyone? I am not saying that your criticism isn't correct or inaccurate. Its just that much of it is, imo unnecessary. Do you really think BI needs another person telling them that they need to make less bugs. Or fix performance. Or put in bipods. Or whatever else. Yes I am "extrapolating" off of your critiques. But this is the kind of "criticism" that people are constantly giving BI. And after a while it stops becoming constructive.

This is the idea I am trying to get across. Yes criticism is fine. But much of the criticism I see now days, especially that towards their business practices in the past during alpha beta and release, is imo overkill and just becomes negativity that can only hurt the game.

Consequently, look how much dev time and polish DayZ gets in comparison. I mean yeah it's pretty moot to point out who the red headed step child is at this point, but honestly you didn't even see that kind of work and attention to detail put into ArmA and ArmA 2

And there is a very big reason for that. They make the more money. Don't take it personally. Its business.

Edited by -Coulum-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, okay. If you are not holding a grudge what are you doing? And how is it helping anyone? I am not saying that your criticism isn't correct or inaccurate. Its just that much of it is, imo unnecessary. Do you really think BI needs another person telling them that they need to make less bugs. Or fix performance. Or put in bipods. Or whatever else. Yes I am "extrapolating" off of your critiques. But this is the kind of "criticism" that people are constantly giving BI. And after a while it stops becoming constructive.

This is the idea I am trying to get across. Yes criticism is fine. But much of the criticism I see now days, especially that towards their business practices in the past during alpha beta and release, is imo overkill and just becomes negativity that can only hurt the game.

And there is a very big reason for that. They make the more money. Don't take it personally. Its business.

I dunno, you see it as overkill and I see it as trying to light a fire under their asses basically. Fact is that if they spent half as much time fixing issue's that need to be fixed instead of implementing half cocked idea's like the soldier protection for instance that while "nice" in a certain sense aren't honestly needed as much as AI fixed or bug fixes etc..., we would be in a much better place honestly. Before we get into the whole different departments work on different things shpeel, The same people working on Soldier Protection were working on AI fixes and documentation as well. Until we see ArmA 3 moving forwards instead of sideways, I'm going to criticize, sorry if you don't like it but deal with it. What's the alternative? Crap releases with broken half implemented and axed feature's and the same "ArmA" in ArmA 6 as we had in the original ArmA? Cause that's pretty much where we are headed and you seem pretty pleased to be heading in that direction.

As for DayZ, yeah I agree, but I'm talking about before DayZ was even a thought or had any of the success it has right now. We never really saw the same quality of work being put into DayZ SA into ArmA or ArmA 2 or ArmA 3 it seems like.

---------- Post added at 04:25 ---------- Previous post was at 04:23 ----------

One thing that struck me and which I've said a few times (I don't remember if any of it was on these forums) was that DayZ standalone development basically got "when it's done" development time, i.e. shipping without any vehicles at all was Rocket's call... whereas Arma 3 apparently didn't get that level of leeway but instead was to be released within a certain period of time, even if that meant shipping without a campaign, only having one base jet at that, etc.I ask this with all earnestness and no "rhetorical question" behind it, because I can't read your mind and I don't intend to put words in your mouth, hence this question: What did you think when you realized that "you didn't even see that kind of work and attention to detail put into ArmA and ArmA 2."?

Yes, please ignore the part where I basically told you to shut it cause you're literally like the Jim Jones of the BI forums, consequently also proving my point that you can't give up when defeated but rather continue on in circular logic arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you guys read the new OPREP?

I like the Idea of those, they could considerably improve the communicati between devs and us. I´ve decided to reamin patient a little longer and to see where this is going. I guess I won´t play Arma 3 anyway until Win arrives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All i keep reading in this thread is nothing but

"Meh da game iz broken, fix BI, you promised!"

And stuff like that!

As some else said some posts back, this will do anything but unmotivate BI devs because it feels their work isn't appreciated.

Someone else asks "would you have bought A3 if you knew its release state was going to be as it has been on Day1 ?"

My answer is YES!

For a very simple reason: I know BI, i enjoy their games and i know that over time (i have no hurry!) the game will be exactly as expected. It has been exactly the same for me on A1 and A2. Why bother now ?

Also, about the lack of "announcements", BI has been PERFECTLY clear that they will NOT make any announcement untill they are 10000000% sure that feature/content/whatever will make it in the stable game.

The DEV Branch changelogs are a perfect example of their work. They are working and they are doing it every single damn day.

And before someone comes up with "yeah but they are taking care more for graphics and minor issues instead of fixing AI and other major bugs", a dev team has different people for different areas of what they develop, so this doesn't mean they aren't focusing on major issues aswell, it just means they are still working on the best and most viable solution for it.

Edited by Kid18120

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It gets old fast when the same bugs that were in OFP are still present. AI shooting thru trees, bushes, houses. Walking thru houses (has happened in MP for me). One thing they seemed to have fixed since Arma 2 tho is Machinegunners are no longer more accurate than a sniper. At 500m+.

I played sniper almost exclusively in Arma 2 coop and the AI that killed me 90% of the time was an MG. From 500+ metres. With 1 shot. Standing up.

I like to think of cars as an analogy. You have a car that just dies at every red light. Now, do you fix the cars engine or do you focus on bells and whistles like neon lights, rims etc? Should be quite obvious. Fix performance first, then worry about the other cosmetic stuff. Adjusting the sideview mirror will do nothing for the engine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It gets old fast when the same bugs that were in OFP are still present. AI shooting thru trees, bushes, houses. Walking thru houses (has happened in MP for me). One thing they seemed to have fixed since Arma 2 tho is Machinegunners are no longer more accurate than a sniper. At 500m+.

I played sniper almost exclusively in Arma 2 coop and the AI that killed me 90% of the time was an MG. From 500+ metres. With 1 shot. Standing up.

I like to think of cars as an analogy. You have a car that just dies at every red light. Now, do you fix the cars engine or do you focus on bells and whistles like neon lights, rims etc? Should be quite obvious. Fix performance first, then worry about the other cosmetic stuff. Adjusting the sideview mirror will do nothing for the engine.

These are my sentiments as well. They're making progress by starting these new OPREPs and acknowledging that there are limitations. But now we need to see them actually working to fix these underlying issues with the engine. Good that the OPREP was on soldier protection, but I'd rather a focus (if there is any diverting of focus) be on performance first (and, more particularly, vegetation/trees, AI, and ballistics), then on the finer aspects of the simulation. Because, again, none of it matters to the player if performance isn't "optimal". AI and trees first, as at least for me, that's what causes the most performance issues. Then ballistics I assume, because FPS drops by 10 every time I fire more than one shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
These are my sentiments as well. They're making progress by starting these new OPREPs and acknowledging that there are limitations. But now we need to see them actually working to fix these underlying issues with the engine. Good that the OPREP was on soldier protection, but I'd rather a focus (if there is any diverting of focus) be on performance first (and, more particularly, vegetation/trees, AI, and ballistics), then on the finer aspects of the simulation. Because, again, none of it matters to the player if performance isn't "optimal". AI and trees first, as at least for me, that's what causes the most performance issues. Then ballistics I assume, because FPS drops by 10 every time I fire more than one shot.

Pretty much this ^

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  

×