Arma Neither This Or That Nor One Or The Other

[infiltrator_2k 29]

Given the current problems with Arma's engine regarding the performance issues, I've recently been looking around to see what other games there are out there. I've played LOMAC in the past and was in awe at its immersion and that was several years ago. Only today did I discover how much DCS World has evolved. OK it's primarily a flight simulator, but nevertheless it's also a sandbox. But what struck me was how games such as DCS definitively comes under a genre. Sure, Arma 3 comes under 'tactical shooter, but given its content is seems to be 'neither this or that'. Tactical shooter? The ACE mod clearly modified Arma 2 where it could be classed as more of a combat simulator given its attention to detail with ballistic trajectory and recoil etc. However, today's Arma seems to be cleverly designed and marketed to appeal to the masses, but it also seems to be lacking in both realism and fun factor. What I'm trying to say is it disappoints people who'd like more realism, but it also disappoints people who want more fire-power action. Why? 'Because it's neither this or that'. It's neither a simulator nor a fun-factor first-person shooter.

I know I'm going to get a right roasting over saying this and I know it's been debated a million times before, but I really do believe BIS should have stuck with the present wartime theme, as well as focusing on the realism more to give players the immersion of being in today's combat role and in the correct environment; it would have been what it said on the tin. But Arma today seems to be set out to please all when it can't realistically do that. Of course, there will be some who find the balance right, but pressing the 'Q' button to start up an aircraft kind of puts things into perspective. That's Battlefield, but the flying isn't. Some addons IMO can add to the confusion.

No doubt many will disagree but I'm just expressing an opinion and my perception of today's Arma.

[roshnak 41]

Arma 3 is basically the same game as Arma 2. It just has different vehicle and weapon models. What changes have been made to Arma 3's gameplay to drag it into this middle ground that you speak of?

As for this comment:

Of course, there will be some who find the balance right, but pressing the 'Q' button to start up an aircraft kind of puts things into perspective. That's Battlefield, but the flying isn't.

Do you find the core experience of driving a car in real life to be the act of driving it, or adjusting your seat and mirrors, buckling your seat belt, and turning the key in the ignition? Would you say a driving simulator that features realistic driving, but does not allow you to do those other things is confusing or unrealistic?

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Arma series is DCS world on a waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay toned and watered down level. Arma couldn't come close to DCS world, as it's far too ambitous with a larger team, and an Engine designed to do what DCS world is intended to do. Arma on the other hand, has inherited it's Engine from previous titles with upgrades along the way. While capable of doing what it does at the moment, it could be better, but still does a decent job putting out for a less serious, medium scale open sandbox game. DCS world is a large scale open world Sandbox with a wide variety of simulation aspects ranging from Airial Warfare first hand, Naval Warfare, Mild Tank Warfare, and little to no Infantry combat. It also surprisingly has civilian traffic that can stack up for miles if you take out a bridge. Also, recently DCS world is getting an Engine overhaul, with the addition of a completely new map quite similar actually, to Arma 3's current setting. The only difference is, it looks stunning, due io it's real life scale, and detail capabilities.

Now in my complete honest Opinion, Arma 3 is great for what it is. But i patiently await the day they can make Arma on the scale DCS is. But for now, i can dream, i hope they at least throw in some kind of major Engine update with the Expansion.

[the_demongod 31]

But i patiently await the day they can make Arma on the scale DCS is.

Unfortunately this probably won't ever happen. VBS does have similar scale, but it's built for a much much larger force in terms of manpower. I highly doubt that it would ever be lucrative for a company to build such an in-depth simulator for infantry. Arma 3 is still essentially arcade if compared to DCS or BMS, and it's already far less popular than, say, battlefield. Scale it up so that it takes 15 minutes to get flown to the AO? You'll lose all the casual players which, as unfortunate as it is, are very important to BI because they make up a significant portion of their customers. I personally would love to see a civilian copy of VBS because after playing many hours of BMS and DCS, I personally do enjoy that 15 minute flight to the AO. It adds a level of depth that only a minority of us can enjoy, which is why I say don't be too excited.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Unfortunately this probably won't ever happen. VBS does have similar scale, but it's built for a much much larger force in terms of manpower. I highly doubt that it would ever be lucrative for a company to build such an in-depth simulator for infantry. Arma 3 is still essentially arcade if compared to DCS or BMS, and it's already far less popular than, say, battlefield. Scale it up so that it takes 15 minutes to get flown to the AO? You'll lose all the casual players which, as unfortunate as it is, are very important to BI because they make up a significant portion of their customers. I personally would love to see a civilian copy of VBS because after playing many hours of BMS and DCS, I personally do enjoy that 15 minute flight to the AO. It adds a level of depth that only a minority of us can enjoy, which is why I say don't be too excited.

Very true.

[infiltrator_2k 29]

Unfortunately I've now got to say goodbye to Arma after many years of enjoyment and many hours of creating mission and gameplay. As previous posts have stated, Arma needs a major engine overhaul. I'm not going to bore you and bang on about it, but when you build a high-performance gaming rig that costs a shed load of money and get 11-20FPS it's a no-brainer what BIS have to do. I don't know if it's true, but if Arma doesn't utilise multicore processors it needs to be scrapped if the current engine cannot be modified to support multicore.

I've put a lot of money and time into Arma what with creating missions, learning to code and maintaining a dedicated server, but if I can't enjoy playing the game myself unfortunately it's time to move on. BTW, I had a bash on DCS World last night and was blown away - not just by the immersion, but at the level of detail, not to mention the performance. With that said, I'm also prepared to pay £30 for a highly detailed model of aircraft because of the attention to detail and realism of the aircraft. I do after all get what it says on the tin and it's clearly what it says it is and that's a Digital Combat Simulator.

[bullhorn 18]

They already made ARMA on a DCS scale. It's called VBS3 and they probably sold it for billions to the US military. Who cares about the small guy, huh.

[chrisb 196]

Unfortunately I've now got to say goodbye to Arma after many years of enjoyment and many hours of creating mission and gameplay. As previous posts have stated, Arma needs a major engine overhaul. I'm not going to bore you and bang on about it, but when you build a high-performance gaming rig that costs a shed load of money and get 11-20FPS it's a no-brainer what BIS have to do. I don't know if it's true, but if Arma doesn't utilise multicore processors it needs to be scrapped if the current engine cannot be modified to support multicore.

I've put a lot of money and time into Arma what with creating missions, learning to code and maintaining a dedicated server, but if I can't enjoy playing the game myself unfortunately it's time to move on. BTW, I had a bash on DCS World last night and was blown away - not just by the immersion, but at the level of detail, not to mention the performance. With that said, I'm also prepared to pay £30 for a highly detailed model of aircraft because of the attention to detail and realism of the aircraft. I do after all get what it says on the tin and it's clearly what it says it is and that's a Digital Combat Simulator.

If I was into air combat, then DCS would be the one to have. But this series is not about that, its mostly all types of war with a heavy lean towards infantry. So what arma does, DCS can't do i.e. infantry. That's what this series is.

I do however agree, BI have put A3 into the middle ground.

But is this series really about anything other than the infantry sandbox experience. It does the rest to a level, but that is the same with DCS, it does air great, the rest to a level, some of it to a really low level.

Whereas this series tries hard to allow you to use other types of war-fare (other than infantry, that is), all to a reasonably good level. Infantry in this series (not A3, but in A2CO), when modded, can be a near perfect war/combat simulation.

But the other main thing you have to consider, DCS simulates machine based war-fare, Arma simulates human based war-fare, the two are very different and BI have the more difficult task imo. They don't succeed fully on their own, but with the player/group communities the game does deliver a infantry simulation second to none. But that is with A2CO, heavily modded.

With A3, BI took a different route, they tried to pull in mainstream players from titles such as BF3. It did work to a degree, but that left it in an odd place really, halfway to nowhere. I think many of the initial players it brought over have dripped away because of the problems, most of us are used to to these problems, but some just can't be doing with it and move away.

But yes I agree with the OP where A3 is concerned. A3 isn't a natural progression for this series.

But regards the rest in the series, well certainly with A2, they began what can only be described as a full on infantry based war simulation (when modded). They walked away from that because it isn't a high seller and they don't do what DCS do and that is sell parts for the game, they maybe should consider that, I've said it before, I wish they would make a full on sim version, with parts that you buy for the game. Then have the lighter version, aka A3, but that's not going to happen.

But I'm thankful they have left us with A2CO and with the great help of the player/group communities (mod/addons) we have a unique game in A2CO, it brings us into territory not seen in war sim games before, or likely to again (probably).

[roshnak 41]

Unfortunately I've now got to say goodbye to Arma after many years of enjoyment and many hours of creating mission and gameplay. As previous posts have stated, Arma needs a major engine overhaul. I'm not going to bore you and bang on about it, but when you build a high-performance gaming rig that costs a shed load of money and get 11-20FPS it's a no-brainer what BIS have to do. I don't know if it's true, but if Arma doesn't utilise multicore processors it needs to be scrapped if the current engine cannot be modified to support multicore.

I've put a lot of money and time into Arma what with creating missions, learning to code and maintaining a dedicated server, but if I can't enjoy playing the game myself unfortunately it's time to move on. BTW, I had a bash on DCS World last night and was blown away - not just by the immersion, but at the level of detail, not to mention the performance. With that said, I'm also prepared to pay £30 for a highly detailed model of aircraft because of the attention to detail and realism of the aircraft. I do after all get what it says on the tin and it's clearly what it says it is and that's a Digital Combat Simulator.

It sucks that you are getting such bad performance. All I can say is that I have a relatively high-end PC that doesn't have nearly as much trouble running Arma as yours apparently does. Arma doesn't fully utilize multicore processors, but very few game do.

Just so you know, DCS doesn't utilize multicore processors any better than Arma does and also struggles to make full use of modern hardware. They are apparently working on an updated (not new) graphics engine that should allow for more detailed terrains and better hardware usage, but it has been in development for more than 4 years and as far as I know there is no ETA on the release. Flight sims are not known for timely updates.

Either way, I don't know why you're even comparing Arma with DCS. They are completely different games, in different genres, with different goals. Even if they were to flesh out the ground game more, you would still have the problem of there being an incredibly bare bones AI, and the game relying heavily on mission scripting. I mean, if you really like flipping switches, then DCS is definitely the game for you, but that's not what Arma is about, and it never has been.

Edit:

If I was into air combat, then DCS would be the one to have. But this series is not about that, its mostly all types of war with a heavy lean towards infantry. So what arma does, DCS can't do i.e. infantry. That's what this series is.

This I agree with.

With A3, BI took a different route, they tried to pull in mainstream players from titles such as BF3. It did work to a degree, but that left it in an odd place really, halfway to nowhere. I think many of the initial players it brought over have dripped away because of the problems, most of us are used to to these problems, but some just can't be doing with it and move away.

This I really don't. What changes did BI make in an attempt to "pull in mainstream players from titles such as BF3?"

Edited January 21, 2015 by roshnak

[KeyCat 131]

Arma on the other hand, has inherited it's Engine from previous titles with upgrades along the way.

Just wan't to point out that so is DCS (also with the upcoming EDGE), it's roots are from LOMAC released 2003 IIRC and have it's shortcomings just like the VRx engine. One example is no colidable trees and they don't block AI's LOS.

The only difference is, it looks stunning, due io it's real life scale, and detail capabilities.

DCS looks nice from 1000+ feets but when it comes to down low A3 wins hands down. DCS on the other hand wins hands down when it comes to cockpits, FM, damage modelling and avionics, of course all IMHO.

/KC

Edited January 21, 2015 by KeyCat

[chrisb 196]

This I really don't. What changes did BI make in an attempt to "pull in mainstream players from titles such as BF3?"

You have played A3, lets say simplicity in play, dummy heals, run anywhere with any weight without consequence, driving, AI, multi shots to kill.. I'll finish there.

Overall its the feel of A3 when compared to playing A2CO, if you can't see the difference then you weren't playing A2CO to its fullest potential, I can't change that, but A3 is a lite version in every respect, but that's only my view, based on the way I play the game.

[vran. 13]

ArmA is a military sandbox where you do what you will. You can either play missions, make them, make addons and mods (needs external programs and some knowledge), simulate infantry warfare, CQB, spec op missions, aircraft combat, naval combat, tank combat, ect. It's even possible to turn it into a 'life simulator' or various other concepts (e.g. real-time strategy style, fantasy or sci-fi style, hand-to-hand combat, medieval themes, ect.). There are no limits other than your imagination and dedication. Of course there are certain engine limits but with clever ideas it's possible to transcend many of them. There's no point in comparing it to other, specialized games on the market. DCS is a in-depth combat aircraft/vehicle sim that caters to dedicated war simmers specifically whereas Battlefield is designed for TvT players and 'graphics whores' ( ;) ) who want instant action. You can make as much out of ArmA as you wish and that's what makes it unique. From the point of view of 'realism worshippers', it might be a bit too tonned down and 'unfocused' for their taste but there are no reasons why you couldn't mod it to your own taste. Your other options are to either keep spamming this board with what you wish to see in the game or be prepared to spend a good few grands on your personal VBS copy. :p

p.s.: maybe the Outerra-based TitanIM sandbox military sim will be the saviour? ;)

[infiltrator_2k 29]

If I was into air combat, then DCS would be the one to have. But this series is not about that, its mostly all types of war with a heavy lean towards infantry. So what arma does, DCS can't do i.e. infantry. That's what this series is.

I do however agree, BI have put A3 into the middle ground.

But is this series really about anything other than the infantry sandbox experience. It does the rest to a level, but that is the same with DCS, it does air great, the rest to a level, some of it to a really low level.

Whereas this series tries hard to allow you to use other types of war-fare (other than infantry, that is), all to a reasonably good level. Infantry in this series (not A3, but in A2CO), when modded, can be a near perfect war/combat simulation.

But the other main thing you have to consider, DCS simulates machine based war-fare, Arma simulates human based war-fare, the two are very different and BI have the more difficult task imo. They don't succeed fully on their own, but with the player/group communities the game does deliver a infantry simulation second to none. But that is with A2CO, heavily modded.

With A3, BI took a different route, they tried to pull in mainstream players from titles such as BF3. It did work to a degree, but that left it in an odd place really, halfway to nowhere. I think many of the initial players it brought over have dripped away because of the problems, most of us are used to to these problems, but some just can't be doing with it and move away.

But yes I agree with the OP where A3 is concerned. A3 isn't a natural progression for this series.

But regards the rest in the series, well certainly with A2, they began what can only be described as a full on infantry based war simulation (when modded). They walked away from that because it isn't a high seller and they don't do what DCS do and that is sell parts for the game, they maybe should consider that, I've said it before, I wish they would make a full on sim version, with parts that you buy for the game. Then have the lighter version, aka A3, but that's not going to happen.

But I'm thankful they have left us with A2CO and with the great help of the player/group communities (mod/addons) we have a unique game in A2CO, it brings us into territory not seen in war sim games before, or likely to again (probably).

Agreed, BIS have taken a different route with Arma 3 and look at all the idiots it's attracted :/ ex- battlefield caffeine fuelled snotty nose kids injecting scripts and using hacks. Unless you're playing on a clan server nowadays you'll get a bunch of retards joining a game team killing or using air as their own little game. The fact BEC was coded just illustrates how BIS' middle-ground creation has attracted the wrong kind of players with the wrong mentality.

IMO BIS have sold out on the original Arma fans by leaning more towards the arcade gameplay. As I mentioned before, pressing 'Q' to initiate the start-up of a multimillion dollar aircraft is Battlefield territory. The fact scripts and server rules have been created to stop idiots flying air just illustrates how unrealistic some elements of Arma is. Don't get me wrong, infantry is pretty good. In fact I'd say it's pretty immersive. But IMO BIS need to stop worrying about deterring players from making Arma too complicated. If someone wants to fly a multi-billion dollar aircraft make the lazy f00ker spend five minutes learning the start up procedure. Players will spend five minutes travelling back to part of the map where they died but not a few moments flicking several switches? I don't know if the helicopter DLC has any level of difficulty of starting the aircraft, but if I was to pay for it I'd at least want that.

I know there's a story behind the Karts addon, but I have to tell you, when I saw BIS had added go-karts to Arma my heart sank. I haven't played Zeus so I can't be too critical and I'm sure it's fun and makes games more dynamic, but I really did wish BIS had focused more on existing content and fixing the engine and ironing out the bugs before simply adding another feature. Of course playing god in a game will attract new blood and more revenue, but I stand to what I initially said and that's IMO at least, Arma is neither one or the other. If BIS are going to create a realistic infantry experience then they need to follow that on with other elements of the game to give it a definitive genre.

IMO Arma has lost its way and I think it's ironic that DayZ will out sell the Arma series. IMO it's better to cater for a smaller loyal audience who are prepared to pay for DLC in the long run than a larger audience that will eventually dwindle away and migrate to other games.

I'm obviously bias, but playing A2's BAF on the Morning Dew mission was by far the best and most immersive Arma gaming experience I've had with the series. As for ACE... simply awesome :)

[Sub-Human 10]

Teamkilling, destroying friendly assets has been around for a very long time. In ArmA 2 I'd say it was even worse, as A3 has less of the Warfare/Domination servers.

However, I do not understand why BIS cannot introduce some of the features that we inherited from ACE or AGM mod. If someone can come up with a script to make realistic tank controls or bleeding simulation in their spare time, why can't a team of 50+ do it on a full-time job? What was the point of adding diving and scuba gear when there are countless other things that could be done?

[sektor 2]

I wander if they could ad advanced features for currently dumbed down features that you can switch on or off, like the new flight model. Are there any obvious disadvantages that i don't see with the ability to switch advanced armor, injuries, planes and other features?

[bullhorn 18]

I do not understand why BIS cannot introduce some of the features that we inherited from ACE or AGM mod. If someone can come up with a script to make realistic tank controls or bleeding simulation in their spare time, why can't a team of 50+ do it on a full-time job?

I'm sure everyone has been asking themselves the same question for nearly a decade.

What was the point of adding diving and scuba gear when there are countless other things that could be done?

People love gimmicks? I don't think it had any impact on the development progress - On the contrary, I would've been really mad if ARMA3 had GTA4's swimming physics, even though it's pretty terrible anyway.

[Sandy* 10]

Arma series is DCS world on a waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay toned and watered down level. Arma couldn't come close to DCS world, as it's far too ambitous with a larger team, and an Engine designed to do what DCS world is intended to do. Arma on the other hand, has inherited it's Engine from previous titles with upgrades along the way. While capable of doing what it does at the moment, it could be better, but still does a decent job putting out for a less serious, medium scale open sandbox game. DCS world is a large scale open world Sandbox with a wide variety of simulation aspects ranging from Airial Warfare first hand, Naval Warfare, Mild Tank Warfare, and little to no Infantry combat. It also surprisingly has civilian traffic that can stack up for miles if you take out a bridge. Also, recently DCS world is getting an Engine overhaul, with the addition of a completely new map quite similar actually, to Arma 3's current setting. The only difference is, it looks stunning, due io it's real life scale, and detail capabilities.

Like KeyCat said, DCS is similarly derivative work of 10+ years all the way from LOMAC - and just like Arma, has its share of big performance issues. The terrain, trees, buildings and many effects look terrible at lower altitudes and would've been mediocre at best 10 years ago. It's no biggie when flying fixed-wing planes, but you do spend quite a lot of time looking at those ancient graphics while playing with one of the several helicopter modules (not to mention Combined Arms). DCS has done nothing better than Arma so far, and the long-waited EDGE upgrade won't change the fact that huge scale is achieved by sacrificing the detail of terrain and infrastructure. So just as you can hope for Arma to have the scale of DCS in the future, you'll have to hope for DCS having Arma's detail.

I really don't understand this comparison at all. Arma is not a hardcore sim in any field, but is much more focused on ground combat. DCS is a primarily a flight sim, and anything related to ground combat is full of compromises up to the point that it's a joke compared to Arma.

[vegeta897 13]

run anywhere with any weight without consequence

Huh? I could do this in Arma 2 easily, unless I had ACE mod running. The new fatigue system in Arma 3 is much less forgiving than Arma 2. Before the update there were little to no consequences, but after you really have to watch the weight of your kit as well as how much you're sprinting, and being at max fatigue makes you run very slow and makes aiming very difficult. There was a huge outcry from people because of how drastic the change was. Have you played Arma 3 recently?

[infiltrator_2k 29]

Huh? I could do this in Arma 2 easily, unless I had ACE mod running. The new fatigue system in Arma 3 is much less forgiving than Arma 2. Before the update there were little to no consequences, but after you really have to watch the weight of your kit as well as how much you're sprinting, and being at max fatigue makes you run very slow and makes aiming very difficult. There was a huge outcry from people because of how drastic the change was. Have you played Arma 3 recently?

There's was a big outcry because they've never carried a kit laden bergen, webbing and rifle before. Not to mentioned the bloody heavy army issue helmets. People want to carry an arsenal of weapons and explosives to destroy a small country and wonder why they can't run across the terrain like Superman :D You have to give credit to BIS for fatigue system. As long as we're on the level playing field with the Ai I can see nothing wrong with the realism.

[strangere 2]

Agreed, BIS have taken a different route with Arma 3 and look at all the idiots it's attracted :/ ex- battlefield caffeine fuelled snotty nose kids injecting scripts and using hacks. Unless you're playing on a clan server nowadays you'll get a bunch of retards joining a game team killing or using air as their own little game. The fact BEC was coded just illustrates how BIS' middle-ground creation has attracted the wrong kind of players with the wrong mentality.

IMO BIS have sold out on the original Arma fans by leaning more towards the arcade gameplay. As I mentioned before, pressing 'Q' to initiate the start-up of a multimillion dollar aircraft is Battlefield territory.

Ok are you serious? "pressing 'Q' to initiate the start-up of a multi million dollar aircraft is Battlefield territory." Did you know thats the same as it was in OFP, Arma 1 and Arma2? In OFP you also started engine of heli or plane whit "Q". OFP came before battlefield in 2001.

Anyway if you look on most recent changes or additions to Arma 3 you have:

AFM - more realistic flight model. Don't see how that's losing its original roots or leaning more towards the arcade gameplay.

Firing from vehicle - one of the most wanted features since Ofp.

Sling loading - again don't see how thats losing its original roots or leaning more towards the arcade gameplay.

Not ot mention we just got info that Bipods will be introduced and thats another feature that has been asked since OFP...

The fact scripts and server rules have been created to stop idiots flying air just illustrates how unrealistic some elements of Arma is. Don't get me wrong, infantry is pretty good. In fact I'd say it's pretty immersive. But IMO BIS need to stop worrying about deterring players from making Arma too complicated. If someone wants to fly a multi-billion dollar aircraft make the lazy f00ker spend five minutes learning the start up procedure.

And how is this different in Arma 3 compared to Arma 2 or 1? Basic flight model is pretty much the same across these three games. Of course there are some differences, but in terms of difficulty its exactly the same. Both for helicopters nad planes.

Only thing that has changed is the new flight model in arma 3 for helis. So how exactly BI leaning more towards the arcade gameplay.

run anywhere with any weight without consequence.

Someone didn't play Arma 3 in long while. You probably missed the huge outcry that the fatigue system caused.

Edited January 21, 2015 by strangere

[vegeta897 13]

There's was a big outcry because they've never carried a kit laden bergen, webbing and rifle before. Not to mentioned the bloody heavy army issue helmets. People want to carry an arsenal of weapons and explosives to destroy a small country and wonder why they can't run across the terrain like Superman :D You have to give credit to BIS for fatigue system. As long as we're on the level playing field with the Ai I can see nothing wrong with the realism.

Yes! I was just mentioning the outcry as proof that the fatigue system was definitely not toned down or made easier compared to Arma 2. I love what the fatigue system has done for the game's balance.

OFP came before battlefield in 2001.

Also, doesn't anyone remember how arcade-y the heli controls were in OFP? Your altitude automatically contoured to the elevation of the land as you flew. You could fly straight toward a mountain and the heli would automatically rise up to maintain altitude.

[teilx 4]

You have to give credit to BIS for fatigue system

yeah slowing down the speed of movement without a sign of exhaustion(no animations)Masterpiece.....hilarious....sorry but ACE had a lot better System than that(and is not realistic too+ it was optional). Every Arcade/RTS/Sport/FPS game have exhaustion with animation and not forces the Charackter in to a simple SlowMotion mode. Edited January 21, 2015 by TeilX

[enex 11]

Slowing down is animation.Vignette border is visual sign.Loud breathing is audio cue.

[teilx 4]

Slowing down is animation

lol the standard animation where you can not see if the Person is exhausted?...reduce speed is not a animation!!!xD

Vignette border is visual sign.Loud breathing is audio cue.

sorry but this also simple solutions/workarounds but not simulate exhaustion....

[Sandy* 10]

I can only remember one game where I've noticed seperate movement animations during exhaustion. Can you give a list of examples?

Edit: I'd also like to point out that the movement speed drops steplessly in A3 as you build up fatigue, where as in most FPS games "exhaustion" simply means you can't sprint and are forced to move by the regular running/jogging/walking speed until you've lost the built fatigue. Adding exhaustion animations to A3 would be yet another challenge to make animations change fluidly.

Edited January 21, 2015 by SandyBandy