We need Arma 3 on consoles

[PuFu 4600]

17 minutes ago, celticalliance said:

Wow guys. What a lot of testosteron flying around here.

 

It would be nice to have a game that is as deep as Arma is on consoles. I for one can understand the comments of the OP about hysterical cod type of games nowadays on consoles, so something different would be nice.

there is no testosterone (bar some of retarded comments, but that is expected) or any PC master race thing going on (PC master race). But you need to understand a few things

a. what makes ArmA what it is, it is not its mechanics or pre-built mission templates - but its sandbox nature, being able to turn it into anything you like, being moddable and being able to create your own scenarios. 

 

b. by definition, simulations means being able to interact and control a number of things. I am not saying that  you cannot have a more serious type of game on consoles, or that these are not capable of handling these types of games.

c. if a next iteration of this franchise is ever made, it better have the same sort of systems in place making it a sandbox just like previous ones were. What most of you don't seem to get is that it isn't as easy as make a proper game for PC, and then make a variation of the first that works the same but still different, and then lacks the very things that make ArmA such a unique and long lasting video game

[PuFu 4600]

3 minutes ago, chrisb said:

It wouldn't remove the editor or mods. The editor in OFPElite was quite a nice editor, not as good as the pc version obviously, I also messed around with that two. But of the two, the xbox editor was a very good straight forward editor that most every player could use, therefore very suited to the console.

still, things today are a ton more powerful in terms of what the editor can do. It would still need to have a ton more prefab stuff to get it to work without any init input

 

Quote

With consoles getting more powerful, I can't see why the consoles today couldn't handle mods.

It isn't about consoles not being able to handle mods, but the system to get these mods in and loading. And there is no way that is possible without some sort of curated system from BI themselves (also not possible for PS4, due to the way Sony has it setup)

[chrisb 196]

1 minute ago, PuFu said:

there is no testosterone (bar some of retarded comments, but that is expected) or any PC master race thing going on (PC master race). But you need to understand a few things
a. what makes ArmA what it is, it is not its mechanics or pre-built mission templates - but its sandbox nature, being able to turn it into anything you like, being moddable and being able to create your own scenarios. 

b. by definition, simulations means being able to interact and control a number of things. I am not saying that  you cannot have a more serious type of game on consoles, or that these are not capable of handling these types of games.
c. if a next iteration of this franchise is ever made, it better have the same sort of systems in place making it a sandbox just like previous ones were. What most of you don't seem to get is that it isn't as easy as make a proper game for PC, and then make a variation of the first that works the same but still different, and then lacks the very things that make ArmA such a unique and long lasting video game

 

OFPElite on the original xbox was advertised as a military sandbox game (iifc), due to the editor and the possibility players could make their own missions/scenarios or indeed war gaming worlds. Obviously using the maps available.

 

I think many are thinking more about the later console release, that was a different game.

[PuFu 4600]

1 minute ago, chrisb said:

 

OFPElite on the original xbox was advertised as a military sandbox game (iifc), due to the editor and the possibility players could make their own missions/scenarios or indeed war gaming worlds. Obviously using the maps available.

  

I think many are thinking more about the later console release, that was a different game.

i said this before - BI is a business, and it is obvious that they have understood the existing market opportunity for consoles. I am saying that ideally they would just need to make a single game and port it across (and that is obviously not possible), make something that works out of the box on consoles - they will sort of fuck over everyone on PC, or make 2 games, one being a variant of the first (that means a lot more dev time on it), which simplified control schemes, with some simplified mechanics and some features watered down or removed

[stburr91 1002]

13 minutes ago, PuFu said:

there is no testosterone (bar some of retarded comments, but that is expected) or any PC master race thing going on (PC master race). But you need to understand a few things

a. what makes ArmA what it is, it is not its mechanics or pre-built mission templates - but its sandbox nature, being able to turn it into anything you like, being moddable and being able to create your own scenarios. 

 

b. by definition, simulations means being able to interact and control a number of things. I am not saying that  you cannot have a more serious type of game on consoles, or that these are not capable of handling these types of games.

c. if a next iteration of this franchise is ever made, it better have the same sort of systems in place making it a sandbox just like previous ones were. What most of you don't seem to get is that it isn't as easy as make a proper game for PC, and then make a variation of the first that works the same but still different, and then lacks the very things that make ArmA such a unique and long lasting video game

 

 

I will go a step further. Not only do I expect A4 to have all the same features as A3, but I expect new features that makes A4 even better.

 

If BI wants to keep me as a consumer, that's what they have t do. I fully expect companies in this competitive gaming market to progress, not regress.  

[chrisb 196]

10 minutes ago, PuFu said:

i said this before - BI is a business, and it is obvious that they have understood the existing market opportunity for consoles. I am saying that ideally they would just need to make a single game and port it across (and that is obviously not possible), make something that works out of the box on consoles - they will sort of fuck over everyone on PC, or make 2 games, one being a variant of the first (that means a lot more dev time on it), which simplified control schemes, with some simplified mechanics and some features watered down or removed

 

I'm not so sure your view works. They have done it before with OFPElite, so they would be foolish in my view not to think about it again. Mainly because the console gaming world has 'exploded' since Elite and the consoles are hugely different now than back then. Plus player numbers, especially for the gaming styles seen in A3 now, would be huge & indeed suit console players.

 

They had mixed reviews with the original xbox elite version, but they have matured as a business. If it were me, I'd be thinking about a possible console release (again) for the series at some stage.

 

[chrisb 196]

3 minutes ago, stburr91 said:

 

 

I will go a step further. Not only do I expect A4 to have all the same features as A3, but I expect new features that makes A4 even better.

 

If BI wants to keep me as a consumer, that's what they have t do. I fully expect companies in this competitive gaming market to progress, not regress.  

 

I'm not so sure BI would consider your buying a product to be their first concern.

 

You say regress, it wouldn't be a regression in 'business terms', quite the opposite and probably very lucrative for them in the console world.

 

I wouldn't want to see it, but I look from two views; Gaming (I wouldn't want to see a console version)... From a business view however (I would be saying bring it on)..

[PuFu 4600]

2 minutes ago, chrisb said:

I'm not so sure your view works.[..] If it were me, I'd be thinking about a possible console release (again) for the series at some stage.

you didn't read what i wrote. I personally 100% agree that they should make a move into the consoles with their flagship product. I doubt anyone would properly disagree, especially if such a move would not influence a possible PC release negatively (and btw, a more ergonomic and simplified control scheme for A3 main controls (infantry and shooting) would be a good thing in itself)

 

what i don't agree with is this topic's pompous title "we need ArmA3 on consoles" - that is bullshit, you don't need a video game to begin with, you want A3 on consoles for whatever reason
(and yes, i also own a PS4 pro, i have no shooters on minus some destiny thing i got for free via PS4 plus thing, most game i have on are 3rd person action/adventure ones, i have no "simulation" of any sort - the only ones worth playing are, maybe, some of the driving ones. I personally cannot aim much with a controller, and i hate with a passion the auto-aims and magnet types aim assists systems in game)

[chrisb 196]

2 minutes ago, PuFu said:

you didn't read what i wrote. I personally 100% agree that they should make a move into the consoles with their flagship product. I doubt anyone would properly disagree, especially if such a move would not influence a possible PC release negatively (and btw, a more ergonomic and simplified control scheme for A3 main controls (infantry and shooting) would be a good thing in itself)

 

what i don't agree with is this topic's pompous title "we need ArmA3 on consoles" - that is bullshit, you don't need a video game to begin with, you want A3 on consoles for whatever reason
(and yes, i also own a PS4 pro, i have no shooters on minus some destiny thing i got for free via PS4 plus thing, most game i have on are 3rd person action/adventure ones, i have no "simulation" of any sort - the only ones worth playing are, maybe, some of the driving ones. I personally cannot aim much with a controller, and i hate with a passion the auto-aims and magnet types aim assists systems in game)

 

The xbox version had lots of things you could alter, like disable auto-aim etc. The controller on the whole wasn't too bad, just took a short time to get used to it, coming from the pc version. Can't beat mouse & keyboard though.. 😉

 

The only console I have running now, is the xbox one x, think that is what it is called. I bought it for Red Dead 2, hell of a good game. That sort of has a sandbox side, although certainly not on the level of this series.

 

I have all my old consoles somewhere knocking around, I dare say the original xbox will have the OFPElite disc in it still. I bought the console to see what the ofp version would be like. Glad I did, it was good in the editor, restricted a little, but still very rewarding.

[stburr91 1002]

1 minute ago, chrisb said:

 

I'm not so sure BI would consider your buying a product to be their first concern.

 

You say regress, it wouldn't be a regression in 'business terms', quite the opposite and probably very lucrative for them in the console world.

 

I wouldn't want to see it, but I look from two views; Gaming (I wouldn't want to see a console version)... From a business view however (I would be saying bring it on)..

 

 

The consumer is their first concern.

 

I already stated that the decision on the direction of A4 will be based on economics, because I fully understand that Bi isn't going to simply make a game to appease me personally.  

 

The decision on whether or not A4 will have both a console, and PC version will all come down to whether or not BI thinks they can make enough additional money in the console market to justify the trade offs inherent with that decision.  

 

As I already stated, it's a competitive market, and if they want me as a consumer (and I would bet much of the community thinks similarly) I fully expect A4 to have all the same features as A3, and additional new features.   

 

 

[chrisb 196]

1 minute ago, stburr91 said:

 

 

The consumer is their first concern.

 

I already stated that the decision on the direction of A4 will be based on economics, because I fully understand that Bi isn't going to simply make a game to appease me personally.  

 

The decision on whether or not A4 will have both a console, and PC version will all come down to whether or not BI thinks they can make enough additional money in the console market to justify the trade offs inherent with that decision.  

 

As I already stated, it's a competitive market, and if they want me as a consumer (and I would bet much of the community thinks similarly) I fully expect A4 to have all the same features as A3, and additional new features.   

 

 

I just want A4 to be better than A2OA + all the dlc's.. That may bring me away from A2 then. Although I think A4 will be more of the same, aimed at MP, with little in the way of good ai for the single player. (I don't play the campaigns)

 

Plus most of the A3 game types that are really popular, are almost console styled.

[PuFu 4600]

4 minutes ago, stburr91 said:

The consumer is their first concern.

 

I already stated that the decision on the direction of A4 will be based on economics, because I fully understand that Bi isn't going to simply make a game to appease me personally.  

 

The decision on whether or not A4 will have both a console, and PC version will all come down to whether or not BI thinks they can make enough additional money in the console market to justify the trade offs inherent with that decision.  

 

As I already stated, it's a competitive market, and if they want me as a consumer (and I would bet much of the community thinks similarly) I fully expect A4 to have all the same features as A3, and additional new features.   

It's also a matter of consumer numbers - they could take a business decision (speculating now anyways, not saying that it will happen) to target a pretty different market. I honestly think, considering the gap in terms of what is available for that particular market (the consoles) and the lack of competition outside of the generic shooters of all kinds, that they should make that move. Not really sure what trade-off you are talking about here though.

 

7 minutes ago, chrisb said:

The xbox version had lots of things you could alter, like disable auto-aim etc. The controller on the whole wasn't too bad, just took a short time to get used to it, coming from the pc version. Can't beat mouse & keyboard though.. 😉

There isn't a single title on consoles i have seen where there isn't some sort of assist. Even things like BF, COD etc have this sort of system in place (you aim, there is small soft snap area when over target, and then help tracking the target). Not sure how vigor handles it since that is xbox exclusive title.

 

7 minutes ago, chrisb said:

The only console I have running now, is the xbox one x, think that is what it is called. I bought it for Red Dead 2, hell of a good game. That sort of has a sandbox side, although certainly not on the level of this series.

I love RDR2 singleplayer, the multiplayer parts is rubbish all things considered. But then again, in current day and age, most games are expected to have some sort of multiplayer scene so one can play with or against his friends. 

[stburr91 1002]

2 minutes ago, chrisb said:

I just want A4 to be better than A2OA + all the dlc's.. That may bring me away from A2 then. Although I think A4 will be more of the same, aimed at MP, with little in the way of good ai for the single player. (I don't play the campaigns)

 

Plus most of the A3 game types that are really popular, are almost console styled.

 

 

I think that was my main point.

 

I don't think a game with less features will be considered "better" by much of the current community. 

 

I say less features because I don't know that keeping all the current features, and/or adding features is realistic if A4 will be developed for a console release. 

[chrisb 196]

6 minutes ago, PuFu said:

There isn't a single title on consoles i have seen where there isn't some sort of assist.

 

 

You didn't have the Elite version then..

 

Regards mp, I think coop with friends against a very good ai is far superior, just in my view.

[chrisb 196]

10 minutes ago, stburr91 said:

 

 

 

I don't think a game with less features will be considered "better" by much of the current community. 

 

 

I think A2 was better than A3 on the whole. Certainly at release.

But I'm not a fan of A3 anyway, so I'm bias. 😉

[PuFu 4600]

Just now, chrisb said:

I think A2 was better than A3 on the whole. Certainly at release.

But I'm not a fan of A3 anyway, so I'm bias. 😉

on release, maybe, today, no way. I couldn't go back to A2 robotic movement no matter what (not that A3 is quite there yet, but miles better by comparison).

[chrisb 196]

1 minute ago, PuFu said:

on release, maybe, today, no way. I couldn't go back to A2 robotic movement no matter what (not that A3 is quite there yet, but miles better by comparison).

 

Today with the right mods, A2OA + all the dlc's is way better than A3, for me at least. But you have to include ai in that. AI in A3 is terrible. That is why I won't play A3.

[PuFu 4600]

16 minutes ago, chrisb said:

You didn't have the Elite version then..

 

Regards mp, I think coop with friends against a very good ai is far superior, just in my view.

I am talking about current console generation.

No, i never had an xbox, had a PS2 at some point, now have a PS4. 
No offense but you keep coming back to a game that was made in 2005-2006. The target and market has grossly changed this then. If every single game out there presents yourself with this aiming aids, pretty sure it's going to be a requirement. Again, i don't play any sort of FPS shooters on consoles because
a. i cannot use thumbs to aim correctly. 
b. all the games in that department that interest me are available on PC just as well. 

 

The console controllers are superior over mouse and keyboards in certain areas, and decent in others. shooters are not meant to be played with thumbs btw

 

Quote

Today with the right mods, A2OA + all the dlc's is way better than A3, for me at least.

each with its own i assume, but i though we were talking about vanilla arma, not modded arma

 

Quote

But you have to include ai in that. AI in A3 is terrible. That is why I won't play A3.

I honestly don't think the AI in A3 is any worse than it is in A2

[chrisb 196]

17 minutes ago, PuFu said:

I am talking about current console generation.

No, i never had an xbox, had a PS2 at some point, now have a PS4. 
No offense but you keep coming back to a game that was made in 2005-2006. The target and market has grossly changed this then. If every single game out there presents yourself with this aiming aids, pretty sure it's going to be a requirement. Again, i don't play any sort of FPS shooters on consoles because
a. i cannot use thumbs to aim correctly. 
b. all the games in that department that interest me are available on PC just as well. 

 

The console controllers are superior over mouse and keyboards in certain areas, and decent in others. shooters are not meant to be played with thumbs btw

 

each with its own i assume, but i though we were talking about vanilla arma, not modder arma

 

I honestly don't think the AI in A3 is any worse than it is in A2

 

Yeah, it is each to their own. I think A2OA vanilla ai were and still are better than A3 vanilla. But I don't play vanilla anything, it's all modded.

 

Regards shooters, I don't play many console games ofp-elite being the last and RD2 being the current (big gap), I love pc.

That said, thumbs are very useful with a controller.. 😕

 

The thought BI couldn't put in control choices, if they did make a console version, is an interesting thought. I don't think they would produce a typical console game, OFPElite wasn't a typical game for its day.

 

Plus I already said, consoles have come on a long way, that is the reason I think BI will consider a console version for A4. It may not get beyond a consideration, but it would be foolish to not look at the possibility. Also like I said, the styles of gaming that are popular in A3, are really console style. Not that those styles are good, but the player-base for those styles are big.

[celticalliance 31]

20 hours ago, PuFu said:

there is no testosterone (bar some of retarded comments, but that is expected) or any PC master race thing going on (PC master race). But you need to understand a few things

a. what makes ArmA what it is, it is not its mechanics or pre-built mission templates - but its sandbox nature, being able to turn it into anything you like, being moddable and being able to create your own scenarios. 

 

b. by definition, simulations means being able to interact and control a number of things. I am not saying that  you cannot have a more serious type of game on consoles, or that these are not capable of handling these types of games.

c. if a next iteration of this franchise is ever made, it better have the same sort of systems in place making it a sandbox just like previous ones were. What most of you don't seem to get is that it isn't as easy as make a proper game for PC, and then make a variation of the first that works the same but still different, and then lacks the very things that make ArmA such a unique and long lasting video game

 

You clearly misunderstood my comments. I said it would be nice to have something as deep as Arma on consoles. As such your explanation is nice but it wasn't needed in my case.

 

I am puzzled as to why people get so worked up over just a thought somebody has. This is a game. Sometimes I just feel people take it way too serious, but that could be me.

[domokun 515]

1 hour ago, celticalliance said:

 

You clearly misunderstood my comments. I said it would be nice to have something as deep as Arma on consoles. As such your explanation is nice but it wasn't needed in my case.

 

I am puzzled as to why people get so worked up over just a thought somebody has. This is a game. Sometimes I just feel people take it way too serious, but that could be me.

Simple explanation: Arma is more than a game for many of us here.

Long explanation: Arma is fairly unique because it's a platform that allows users to develop mods that can radically change the game's mechanics, physics, content, appearance, features, AI, etc.

Developing these mods isn't easy, requiring months and even years of investment of time, technical expertise, patience and (in some cases) money.

Currently none of these modders are paid for their efforts. They simply pour in hundreds, if not thousands, of hours of their own time for free.

Why? That's a complex question that deserves a thread unto itself.

My point is that Arma has become, for many in this community, more than just a game. It represents the best game bar none in its category.

Most acknowledge that it's not perfect but many believe that its uniqueness (despite many attempts to emulate it) deserves such attention.

Combine this incredible commitment with a far-reaching question (however innocent it may seem) that could rock the foundations of its developer and/or successor and you have your answer.

[stburr91 1002]

1 hour ago, domokun said:

Simple explanation: Arma is more than a game for many of us here.

Long explanation: Arma is fairly unique because it's a platform that allows users to develop mods that can radically change the game's mechanics, physics, content, appearance, features, AI, etc.

Developing these mods isn't easy, requiring months and even years of investment of time, technical expertise, patience and (in some cases) money.

Currently none of these modders are paid for their efforts. They simply pour in hundreds, if not thousands, of hours of their own time for free.

Why? That's a complex question that deserves a thread unto itself.

My point is that Arma has become, for many in this community, more than just a game. It represents the best game bar none in its category.

Most acknowledge that it's not perfect but many believe that its uniqueness (despite many attempts to emulate it) deserves such attention.

Combine this incredible commitment with a far-reaching question (however innocent it may seem) that could rock the foundations of its developer and/or successor and you have your answer.

 

 

Very well said, thank you.

 

I'll just add that all the same can be said about mission makers as well.

 

I don't think the average Arma player understands the amount of time that goes into mission making. Even relatively straight forward missions can take tens of hours, more detailed missions can take hundreds of hours.  

[Rich_R 1087]

1 hour ago, domokun said:

Simple explanation: Arma is more than a game for many of us here.

 

This.

 

A friend who I hadn’t seen in a while asked how my wife was and next question was, “How’s Arma?”

 

And he’s not a gamer.

[joostsidy 685]

- I don't think it is good business sense to convert A3 to console, because the game is relatively old.

- Arma has a kind of continuous development thing going on. To service both pc and console you would get two dev-branches that require a lot of overhead.

 

You could reach a new audience, but I'm not convinced the size of potential customer group is worth the investment risk.

 

The starting premise of this thread was: shooters are often too 'simplistic' for console, Arma can bring in a more 'complex' alternative. The question makes sense, but maybe Arma is a bit overkill? I have had great

times with serious tactical shooters like Rainbow Six Ravenshield. Maybe this type of game would fit better: it's not a highly moddable sandbox, but it's still a serious shooter with mission editing.

 

 

[Tankbuster 1745]

2 hours ago, Rich_R said:

 

This.

 

A friend who I hadn’t seen in a while asked how my wife was and next question was, “How’s Arma?”

 

And he’s not a gamer.

I've had this too