Arma 3 - APEX - NEWS and SPECULATIONS

[IndeedPete 1038]

Yes, the information policy was a bit questionable. It actually strengthened my suspicion that they were running late with the content. I've said my bit on the quality of the campaign already but even the other assets aside from Tanoa show severe quality gaps. For example, we've got cool looking VTOLs and LSVs but with sloppy feature implemententations. ViV is functional at best. Or the wide range of quality in weapons and gear. There are still texture issues with the Gendarmerie and TI-proof uniforms, TI and TI-masking implementation makes no sense at all (certain vests and headgear emit heat even if you wear them above a TI-proof uniform, bipods heat up as much as barrels etc.), the Bergen backpacks look bloody awful with their low-res texture placeholders, we've got misaligned ERCO optics, inconsistent weapon painting, "glowing" weapons (AKM vs. AK-12 is like day and night in terms of specular mapping), quirky sounds (LIM for example), underdeveloped factions (Gendarmerie with just two units, and the vanilla CTRG loadouts make no sense at all, especially compared to the campaign CTRG gear), and much more. The content aside from the beautiful map lacks polish. Thus, I can only assume they didn't have enough time and therefore weren't able to share any substantial info earlier.

[chortles 263]

Reminds me of what people were saying about Arma 3's own Q3 2013 release window...

 

Though in hindsight that sounds like one of the trickier things about giving Apex a release window -- forget about a date -- at all until said release was imminent. I guess it's informed by how much of a reputation a certain other game has had for missing release windows, much less dates? Although, in (other) AAA games there's a propensity to simply day-one-patch their way through, so I understand why people can complain about lack of post-release polish...

 

As for ViV specifically, I thought the implementation was prioritized by "what'd be the most perceived-bugs-free solution that we can pull off within the release window/deadline, limitations be damned?" (See the arguments over the ramps for the 'perceived' part.)

[dmarkwick 261]

Any thread made up of user speculation is going to be filled with nonsense. The constant cry for more info seems pretty forlorn to me too. I've seen how more communication between developer & user can become ugly. Myself, I would actually prefer less info. Maybe an announcement, video, but then just keep it release day purchase only & just.... release it when it's ready. Pre-purchase seems to give the illusion that information becomes a commitment.

 

I mean, sure I pre-ordered :) makes sense for me to. I haven't been disappointed yet. But threads like this become filled with nonsense IMO.

[Kydoimos 915]

 

Granted, there's a bit of re-use from older titles, a couple of Arma 2 cutscene animations. But also new ones, for example the body drops at 1:03 and 1:07, the badass pistol shooter at 1:15, the guy on the radio at 1:18 (not entirely sure if it's new), or the guy turning towards the camera at 1:26. And generally the AI behaviour (firing out of cover for example) is obviously scripted to an extend where it completely differs from the real gameplay experience. Of course, every trailer does that as trailers are nothing more than commercials that aim for a good first impression. It's just a bit weird that most of these scenes are not actually in the vanilla game.

 

 

Yep, that's the hillarious part. Like they actually produced MOCAP animations which apparently were only used for the trailer. Boggles my mind.

 

All the animations are accessible in the Arma 3 config viewer - there was no additional MOCAP created especially for the trailer :) Though as you say, some are older Arma 2 animations, which have been carried over to Arma 3.

[IndeedPete 1038]

All the animations are accessible in the Arma 3 config viewer - there was no additional MOCAP created especially for the trailer :) Though as you say, some are older Arma 2 animations, which have been carried over to Arma 3.

 

What about the pistol shooter in the jungle at 1:15 then? Where is this animation used outside of the trailer?

 

To be fair, it is a very good trailer, it just depicts a different game.

[Ltf 381]

What about the pistol shooter in the jungle at 1:15 then? Where is this animation used outside of the trailer?

 

To be fair, it is a very good trailer, it just depicts a different game.

I think its from the cutscene where csat officer shoots a tanoan militant

 

https://youtu.be/1IOX9aRWGhA?t=2m41s

[IndeedPete 1038]

I think its from the cutscene where csat officer shoots a tanoan militant

 

https://youtu.be/1IOX9aRWGhA?t=2m41s

 

Yeah true, that could be it. Still, the trailer implies a few scenes to be in the game which are sadly not there.

[Guest]

Any thread made up of user speculation is going to be filled with nonsense. The constant cry for more info seems pretty forlorn to me too. I've seen how more communication between developer & user can become ugly. Myself, I would actually prefer less info. Maybe an announcement, video, but then just keep it release day purchase only & just.... release it when it's ready. Pre-purchase seems to give the illusion that information becomes a commitment.

 

I mean, sure I pre-ordered :) makes sense for me to. I haven't been disappointed yet. But threads like this become filled with nonsense IMO.

Fewer informations? OK, but not a full year before release.

[Varanon 892]

Any thread made up of user speculation is going to be filled with nonsense. The constant cry for more info seems pretty forlorn to me too. I've seen how more communication between developer & user can become ugly. Myself, I would actually prefer less info. Maybe an announcement, video, but then just keep it release day purchase only & just.... release it when it's ready. Pre-purchase seems to give the illusion that information becomes a commitment.

 

Sorry, but what is that supposed to achieve ? I you want the rumor mill NOT to run wild, releasing less information is going to achieve exactly the opposite.

Plus, I don't get how less information should help you sell more copies of your product.

Sorry, but what you say doesn't make any sense

[chortles 263]

All this tells me is that Apex should have been announced much, much closer to the release date. EDIT: darksidesixofficial's post below mine states what I believe was going on with BI being so tight about information...

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

To be fair, Bohemia stated many times, before each and every DLC, that they don't want to say, or promise anything, due to the fact that they may not be able to deliver. Keep in mind Bohemia Interactive is still a relativity small company.

[graemeshute 218]

To be fair, Bohemia stated many times, before each and every DLC, that they don't want to say, or promise anything, due to the fact that they may not be able to deliver. Keep in mind Bohemia Interactive is still a relativity small company.

so do we accept that everything from them maybe less cause they are small? I work in the Web design branding field. We outsource a lot when under pressure as we have development running almost 24 hours. I know there was that done with black element but how extensive was this when this all started? Based on the the general mood of the people perhaps two years was needed for apex. A year fro the island and a year for the content with said campaign running in conjunction with the development of weapons using placeholders or vanilla content as new assets came into fruition.

[graemeshute 218]

 

[IndeedPete 1038]

so do we accept that everything from them maybe less cause they are small? I work in the Web design branding field. We outsource a lot when under pressure as we have development running almost 24 hours. I know there was that done with black element but how extensive was this when this all started? Based on the the general mood of the people perhaps two years was needed for apex. A year fro the island and a year for the content with said campaign running in conjunction with the development of weapons using placeholders or vanilla content as new assets came into fruition.

 

Keep in mind that not everyone at Bohemia worked on Apex the whole time. There have been three other DLC plus fifty or so platform updates over the years. And you're only looking at the asset side of things - which is a fair point - but dismisses the structural changes below the surface. Also, no offence, but web design tends to be less complex than other branches of software development. Or as one of my former professors put it: games are the ultimate when it comes to software development. Add to this that web design is typically production to specification while games have to create their own demand and are generally a more risky investment. I just feel Bohemia shifted from content creation to feature development which I think is the better route in the long term. What other company supports a three year old game on that scale without a subscription-based business model?

[graemeshute 218]

IndeedPete I was not comparing that web was the same as game design. The issue is outsourcing work to other developers to meet deadlines and or add features-its a common sense thing when deadlines are pending and a small company cannot keep up with normal staff count and cannot afford a full time employees-yes yes. it was kind of done by BIS but what are the stats how much and what was outsourced? I suspect all assets where used for Tanoa and last few months was for payable content. and literally the last month or two was for the Campaign. Hence the no news and all of sudden in the month we go thrown dead with it. Mr Spanel must be triggered to go from the OFP campaign to this wet limp fart-Sorry Petr. I mean come on it was not even average it was just a no show.

 

I just feel Bohemia shifted from content creation to feature development which I think is the better route in the long term... Well the mood is maybe but i also think people expected more

You likely have been reading up till now all what was said especially in this thread let alone the wish list thread.

[Kydoimos 915]

 

What other company supports a three year old game on that scale without a subscription-based business model?

 

I want to print that out and frame it :D

[lexx 1331]

To be honest, if they would announce A4 now, I would kinda feel smashed... But not in a positive way. Currently it feels like A3 hasn't reached its full potential yet. Apex made me hope, but... You know.

[graemeshute 218]

To be honest, if they would announce A4 now, I would kinda feel smashed... But not in a positive way. Currently it feels like A3 hasn't reached its full potential yet. Apex made me hope, but... You know.

Gives you a hug...shows you the door. You can do it... To be honest I think i may be a year before we see something in Alpha. But no concrete plans post Apex?

[Guest]

We have no informations about long term Post-Apex plans. They may release more content/features for A3 before working on A4, so there can be more than just a year before hearing about A4.

[dmarkwick 261]

Plus, I don't get how less information should help you sell more copies of your product.

Sorry, but what you say doesn't make any sense

Then don't imagine stuff I didn't try to say :)

 

I'm not in marketing, and I have a minor disdain for it tbh, so my opinions are based on my own feelings. In that spirit, my feeling is that sales probably wouldn't be too different overall. Those who like ArmA will prurchase (generally), those in the middle might wait for reviews etc. Only the early money for presales would be the major difference.

[IndeedPete 1038]

IndeedPete I was not comparing that web was the same as game design. The issue is outsourcing work to other developers to meet deadlines and or add features-its a common sense thing when deadlines are pending and a small company cannot keep up with normal staff count and cannot afford a full time employees-yes yes. it was kind of done by BIS but what are the stats how much and what was outsourced? I suspect all assets where used for Tanoa and last few months was for payable content. and literally the last month or two was for the Campaign. Hence the no news and all of sudden in the month we go thrown dead with it. Mr Spanel must be triggered to go from the OFP campaign to this wet limp fart-Sorry Petr. I mean come on it was not even average it was just a no show.

 

I just feel Bohemia shifted from content creation to feature development which I think is the better route in the long term... Well the mood is maybe but i also think people expected more

You likely have been reading up till now all what was said especially in this thread let alone the wish list thread.

 

Okay, but just outsourcing things seems a bit far-fetched. For once it costs money as well. A lot. Then taking on contractors mid-project leads to high training costs and more organisational overhead, not to mention you'd have to specifically integrate and test all external work products. Corporate secrecy is an aspect as well. But even if enough budget was there and more tasks could have been outsourced, I'm not sure there are even companies who'd offer such services. Hiring a freelancer or web design start-up to do some work with HTML, JavaScript, PHP, what have you, or a  skilled modeller / texture artist - sure, there's plenty of them. But finding a contractor who's familiar enough with RV4 and the proprietary tools, scripting languages (SQF), etc. to perform low-level changes let alone create playable content - I'm not so sure. I'd guess there's a very small selection of very specialised sub-contractors, if any, who would be qualified for such task. And even then, adding manpower to a late software development project only makes it later.

 

Note that I'm not trying to defend BI here. Certainly, something went wrong and Apex Protocol turned out to be hideous. I just don't think outsourcing would have been the right tool to correct 'Hemias questionable management / design decisions.

[Varanon 892]

Then don't imagine stuff I didn't try to say :)

 

Sigh.. where did I claim that YOU said the thing about marketing ?

 

I just don't get how you deduce that with less information, you would lower expectation, or stop the rumor mill from running amok. 

Regarding sales figures: I agree about an expansion, but with DLC, I'm pretty sure it's different.

[fn_Quiksilver 1633]

If you have ever worked on a big project you would know its generally a bad idea to tell people what content should be expected. Something goes wrong and an asset/feature has to be pulled, and immature people in the community get mad.

 

Best to under-state and set no deadlines :) Actual content delivery and production workflow remains the same, but a lot less stress for the employees and a lot less triggering in the community.

 

 

Also why should game companies work commercially on content creation when there are thousands of unpaid hobbyists to do that for them ;) okay okay joking, sortof

[Varanon 892]

If you have ever worked on a big project you would know its generally a bad idea to tell people what content should be expected. Something goes wrong and an asset/feature has to be pulled, and immature people in the community get mad.

 

I have, thank you. Did you ? 

 

So, in essence, you think it's a bad idea to be honest ?

 

Quite frankly, if you explain what went wrong, no need for the community to get mad. IF you can argue your case, a sane person would understand. Yes, there will always be a shitstorm, but that will always happen as you will always fall short of some people's attention, and to stir up a shitstorm, it only needs a few people. If you understate, people will lose interest. If you don't set a deadline, people will CONSTANTLY hammer you with the "when" question. Trust me on that, I know exactly how that goes. To think you can announce something without giving a date, at least an approximate date, is impossible.

 

The only method that works if you really want to cut down on expectation and rumor mongering is to announce shortly before release, say, two months before release. But then, you will be constantly hammered with questions about what your future plans are.

 

And, if you look at the current Apex campaign disaster, it could have been avoided with a bit more open policy.

 

Information policy is a matter that it very complex. It's not as clear cut as you guys want to make it.

[dmarkwick 261]

I have, thank you. Did you ? 

 

So, in essence, you think it's a bad idea to be honest ?

 

Quite frankly, if you explain what went wrong, no need for the community to get mad. IF you can argue your case, a sane person would understand. Yes, there will always be a shitstorm, but that will always happen as you will always fall short of some people's attention, and to stir up a shitstorm, it only needs a few people. If you understate, people will lose interest. If you don't set a deadline, people will CONSTANTLY hammer you with the "when" question. Trust me on that, I know exactly how that goes. To think you can announce something without giving a date, at least an approximate date, is impossible.

 

The only method that works if you really want to cut down on expectation and rumor mongering is to announce shortly before release, say, two months before release. But then, you will be constantly hammered with questions about what your future plans are.

 

And, if you look at the current Apex campaign disaster, it could have been avoided with a bit more open policy.

 

Information policy is a matter that it very complex. It's not as clear cut as you guys want to make it.

Well as I see it there are two things to consider:

"No need for the community to get mad".... nice idea, never will happen :D "community" will always get mad when something isn't to someone's liking in some way. OK, so it's easy to ignore an internet shitstorm, because it's exactly the same as nothing at all really happening. Nerdrage is ignorable nonsense IMO. However it brings me to the second point....

 

There are human beings on the receiving end of nerdrage. I've seen how nerdrage has destroyed developers' confidence and passion for their own product because of it. The two ways to counter it is to not give out unnecessary information or to ignore feedback on information.

 

I guess we are lucky that BIS want to give out information and even to occasionally respond personally to community questions. But, the balance will never be right for some people. There are posts right here on this forum where users explicitly say the devs do not care and only want to cash-grab. This is I hope generally recognised as patently false, but yet the posts & accusations continue. Professionalism prevents the devs from responding harshly, no such consideration is given by the nerdragers :)

 

I can't possibly comment on the idea that the campaign "disaster" could somehow be avoided by being more open, I never play campaigns so have no real idea what you could possibly mean.