Jump to content
bent.toe

We need Arma 3 on consoles

Recommended Posts

those of you in favor of arma on consoles dont seem to understand that it would be nearly impossible to achieve the level of depth and freedom that arma offers if it were ported to console. the controls are incredibly limited, the hardware is limited, and the software is limited. don't fool yourself into thinking that most people play arma for the SP scenarios and the campaign. SP content doesn't really sell shooters much any more, almost nobody cares about campaigns and stories any more. sure, there could be a rudimentary editor in place and maybe even a self-contained multiplayer scene a-la call of duty or something rather than the community-ran servers like we have now, but that would mean stripping away a lot of the things that actually appeal to its playerbase, while also most likely failing to appeal to the majority of the console playerbase. if you think that the gaming community at large has "matured" and is ready for "realistic" and "hardcore" gameplay, you are completely wrong. the majority of "gamers" are more inclined towards easy, fast-paced, immature gameplay, all polar opposites of what arma accomplishes. and as others have said, it would mean either BI develops one extremely dumbed down version and markets it for PC and console (which I might add would probably drive off its entire PC playerbase and make the game a failure on all platforms), or they develop two separate versions of the game which would be a huge strain on their team and be almost impossible to manage. even the big AAA developers struggle with those kinds of things. in the end, it wouldn't be arma, it wouldn't be fun, it wouldn't be successful, and it wouldn't be easy to develop.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, wsxcgy said:

those of you in favor of arma on consoles dont seem to understand that it would be nearly impossible to achieve the level of depth and freedom that arma offers if it were ported to console. the controls are incredibly limited, the hardware is limited, and the software is limited. don't fool yourself into thinking that most people play arma for the SP scenarios and the campaign. SP content doesn't really sell shooters much any more, almost nobody cares about campaigns and stories any more. sure, there could be a rudimentary editor in place and maybe even a self-contained multiplayer scene a-la call of duty or something rather than the community-ran servers like we have now, but that would mean stripping away a lot of the things that actually appeal to its playerbase, while also most likely failing to appeal to the majority of the console playerbase. if you think that the gaming community at large has "matured" and is ready for "realistic" and "hardcore" gameplay, you are completely wrong. the majority of "gamers" are more inclined towards easy, fast-paced, immature gameplay, all polar opposites of what arma accomplishes. and as others have said, it would mean either BI develops one extremely dumbed down version and markets it for PC and console (which I might add would probably drive off its entire PC playerbase and make the game a failure on all platforms), or they develop two separate versions of the game which would be a huge strain on their team and be almost impossible to manage. even the big AAA developers struggle with those kinds of things. in the end, it wouldn't be arma, it wouldn't be fun, it wouldn't be successful, and it wouldn't be easy to develop.

 

 

I pretty much agree with everything in this post ^^^.

 

What I highlighted in red in the quote above is the core question BI will have to determine with the development of A4.

 

Can they produce a game that will be compatible with consoles/appeal to console gamers, and still retain their current player base. I have my doubts that they could pull that off.

 

However, I can only speak for myself, and I can definitively say that I would not buy any future Arma game with core features of the current game removed, or overly simplified. And I sure as heck wouldn't buy any Arma game that is made more arcade like to appeal to the console gamers (no offense to console gamers intended) .    

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

domokun, stburr91 and whoever it may concern:

 

I have played Arma for quite some time already, just like many of the people here. I am also not the average Arma player who doesn't know about the amount of time it takes to create missions. I am actually doing that as well. So, wrong assumptions people. And as such I do not require any lectures. I happen to appreciate the comments made by the OP,  who by now thanks to some of the responses here, already doesn't show himself anymore and I may do so.

 

Just because someone doesn't have that many posts, or actually doesn't mind the opinion of someone who happens to have a different view than most people here, doesn't mean he does not know anything or requires lectures. I have been reading these forums for quite some time already and only recently started to post here, so yeah.

 

Good luck with continuing the discussion everyone.

  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, celticalliance said:

domokun, stburr91 and whoever it may concern:

 

I have played Arma for quite some time already, just like many of the people here. I am also not the average Arma player who doesn't know about the amount of time it takes to create missions. I am actually doing that as well. So, wrong assumptions people. And as such I do not require any lectures. I happen to appreciate the comments made by the OP,  who by now thanks to some of the responses here, already doesn't show himself anymore and I may do so.

 

Just because someone doesn't have that many posts, or actually doesn't mind the opinion of someone who happens to have a different view than most people here, doesn't mean he does not know anything or requires lectures. I have been reading these forums for quite some time already and only recently started to post here, so yeah.

 

Good luck with continuing the discussion everyone.

 

 

I don't quite understand this post.

 

I'm not lecturing anyone, nor did I get the impression that anyone in this thread was lecturing people.

 

I can only speak for myself, but I don't think someone's post count has any relevance in this discussion., and I don't mind at all that some in this thread have different opinions than I do. 

 

I think you may be misunderstanding the intentions of some of the posters here. As far as I see it, everyone is just having an interesting discussion here, nothing more.   

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, celticalliance said:

domokun, stburr91 and whoever it may concern:

 

I have played Arma for quite some time already, just like many of the people here. I am also not the average Arma player who doesn't know about the amount of time it takes to create missions. I am actually doing that as well. So, wrong assumptions people. And as such I do not require any lectures. I happen to appreciate the comments made by the OP,  who by now thanks to some of the responses here, already doesn't show himself anymore and I may do so.

 

Just because someone doesn't have that many posts, or actually doesn't mind the opinion of someone who happens to have a different view than most people here, doesn't mean he does not know anything or requires lectures. I have been reading these forums for quite some time already and only recently started to post here, so yeah.

 

Good luck with continuing the discussion everyone.

You yourself said "I am puzzled" so I took the time to try and explain. If that's somehow offended you, OP or anyone else then I think you ought to re-read my post; I think you'll find that were no "assumptions" there.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, rather provide context and let others draw their own conclusions. If you want to share your missions and/or would like some feedback, then check-out the Missions thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, wsxcgy said:

those of you in favor of arma on consoles dont seem to understand that it would be nearly impossible to achieve the level of depth and freedom that arma offers if it were ported to console. the controls are incredibly limited, the hardware is limited, and the software is limited. don't fool yourself into thinking that most people play arma for the SP scenarios and the campaign. SP content doesn't really sell shooters much any more, almost nobody cares about campaigns and stories any more. sure, there could be a rudimentary editor in place and maybe even a self-contained multiplayer scene a-la call of duty or something rather than the community-ran servers like we have now, but that would mean stripping away a lot of the things that actually appeal to its playerbase, while also most likely failing to appeal to the majority of the console playerbase. if you think that the gaming community at large has "matured" and is ready for "realistic" and "hardcore" gameplay, you are completely wrong. the majority of "gamers" are more inclined towards easy, fast-paced, immature gameplay, all polar opposites of what arma accomplishes. and as others have said, it would mean either BI develops one extremely dumbed down version and markets it for PC and console (which I might add would probably drive off its entire PC playerbase and make the game a failure on all platforms), or they develop two separate versions of the game which would be a huge strain on their team and be almost impossible to manage. even the big AAA developers struggle with those kinds of things. in the end, it wouldn't be arma, it wouldn't be fun, it wouldn't be successful, and it wouldn't be easy to develop.

 

They have done it before, that is what many on here seem not, to realise.

 

It wasn't a straight port, it was built for the xbox console (original console) and if you didn't play it, then you wouldn't realise just what amount of depth they achieved with the game & editor. At the time I think one of the heads at BI (aren't they brothers), thought it was better than the pc version, seem to remember that being on here, in my earlier life 😉

I think he said that mainly, because of the acheivement they made getting more or less all of the pc version onto console with arguably better graphics. Indeed that was a great achievement in my view.

I played both pc and console version of ofp, the difference was not that much, just unit numbers and mods & BI make the vanilla game, not mods. Controls were very intuitive arguably more so, than the pc version.

 

As said, the only thing missing really was modding (there was some limited modding), missions were shared in some instances. Maps etc were all the same, same size, same vanilla units etc, everything 'more or less' exactly as the pc version. The main restriction was unit numbers, iirc 72. Aircraft, armour counted as 4. But for spec op type missions and or smaller skirmishes, it was a perfect platform and all that was put onto, what is now tiny, tech wise, original xbox. But I can see most here didn't play the version, as they are unaware just how good it was, or unaware of the version period. No it wasn't the pc version with the easier modding/scripting etc. But it was more than good enough for a console sim.

 

The series has come on some way since then of course, but so have consoles, way further than the series has shifted. I'm a pc player through and through, but when I picked up this current xbox one x, it surprised me just how good they are now. Still wouldn't replace my pc and run the game style we play, but for the mainstream player that A3 attracted, it would be more than enough. I think that A3, although they won't port A3, but the style and type of play that is the most popular for A3, would suit a console. So A4 could be thought about for a console platform, can't see why not, like I said, they did it before and the only headaches they talked about on the forums back then was the limiting factor of the console (numbers, ai, view distance, mainly), that has changed drastically over the years.

 

Arma has changed, the types of play have changed, ours hasn't, but most players that moved onto A3, now play styles that would easily suit a console. If your playing a fully militarised type wargame like we do, then no it wouldn't suit. But for your average player and lets be honest, A3 now is for the average player, I can't see why a console couldn't handle it.

 

Yes, we all know we would like it to remain pc exclusive, but I look at it also from a business point of view, and for me, it makes really good sense to consider a console version for the next in the series. An exclusive console version, would be worth way more financially for BI than a pc release. Lets hope they don't look at it that way, but they may do so, who knows..

They have developed a console version before.. 😉

 

 

Some mods, I didn't use any mods, but there was a small mod scene back then for the xbox version. Not sure how they ran, but here are a few I found on YT:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with WSXCGY for the most part...ARMA is not a game you'll ever see on a console.  Consoles are not equipped for a sim of this magnatude.  I disagree with WSXCGY with his intepretation of SP.

 

Most gamers play SP, not MP.  This is shown by all gaming publications you can search.

 

Most gamers, I suspect, don't want to be bothered with MP and lack of any story mode, being forced to interact with others, having to jump online with strangers, certain game times, with no cohesion what so ever..typically a s**t show. 

 

Most peeps want some depth and personality that a story creates. A reason to do something. Not run around like a chicken with its head cut off, trying to kill everything and everyone. God aweful if you ask me...and a big chunk of gamers.

 

In my mind,  MP only games are lazy way for devs to earn money. Create map, put down an avatar and enjoy! Nope...no thanks.  I would not buy any game that doesn't have a proper sp mode. Nor would a majority of gamers I suspect. 

 

I play ARMA on my dedicated server solely so it runs better and I can create huge persistsnt campaigns which I play solo...or with a couple of buddies. 

 

Anyhow, my $0.02 worth. 

 

Good day,

DrDetroit

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

domokun and stburr91, I am in no way offended by anything the two of you said. Nor what has been said by others. It just irritated me that I was getting the same type of response others were getting. Here is why.

 

I DO get why you believe Arma is not suitable for consoles. I never even said I felt it was. I merely said it would be nice to have a game as deep as Arma on consoles. Because yes, I play on PS4 and PC and I believe that a more in-depth game on the PS4 than the regular shooters nowadays can actually be made.

 

I also love Arma, just like you. There is no other game like it. It allows our clan to play the way we wish to play, and the fact we can create our own missions and Operations is just amazing. I however don't expect to get the same thing on a console if someone, not necesarily BI, made a game similar to Arma. Note the word similar. And I am fine with that.

 

Having said all that, I am playing Arma long enough by now to know how frustrating coding for missions gets. I and some other clan mates have literally spent hours finding workarounds for things that just couldn't be done in a easy way thanks to SQF. SQF still frustrates me A LOT.

 

As such, I sort of felt like assumptions about me were made because I am not just the average Joe someone referred to. Maybe I took some things the wrong way but hey that is what it looked like to me. The reason I said good luck discussing this further is also quite simple, I don't have the time to start picking fights, nor do I want to keep discussions going.

 

I hope this explains things further. Have a nice day everyone.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am completely aware it has been done before. I am also aware that it was a flop. it failed to attract OFP players and console players alike, much like what I said would happen in my original post. and again like I said before, I have no doubt in my mind that stripped back, simplified versions of the editor and multiplayer experience are possible. but they will be stripped back ultimately and capable of significantly less than what arma offers on the PC. but thats not really the point anyway. the point is that there is far too much risk involved for BI. if you want to make developing a game a worthwhile diversion of resources and time, you have to be sure that you're going to get out what you put in. making games is not free. publishing games is not free. making games takes time. time takes money. BI is a business. you are delusional if you think everyone wants to play a game like arma; whether you like it or not, its a niche game. I see almost no chance that the potential audience for a console arma would be big enough to justify the endeavor. I simply don't believe it would appeal to most classic arma fans and the mass market enough to sell enough copies for BI to break even.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It didn't sell, that is for sure, but that in no way makes it a bad game, which it wasn't (editor wise) and had some members messed around with it here, they would know that.

 

The gaming world has changed over the years since OFP & OFPElite was released, there is a high demand for deeper type 'war games' now, more than ever really. Also console players are looking for more depth and becoming far more sophisticated in their choices, mainly because the console player of yester-year, is still playing at 30+, so yes I think BI may look hard at the console and what is possible now, considering modern day console power, which is just going to get stronger.

 

Some here played SL & ASL (with vasl) I think, prior to ofp (BI) ever being a thing. That was our 'go to' game from the mid 70's before coming over to this series. It took a few years to bring us over fully. Back then ofp was looked on, as many here look on consoles now, as a bit of a joke really, from a war-gamers view. But we soon learnt that ofp, or to be precise 'the editor', was more than that.

A persistent fully militarised war gaming world can be made in there, with of course vasl bits added for us.

 

But I have seen many changes in the gaming world and I can see BI thinking, maybe not doing, but certainly thinking, about console release. The result today in sales would be much better than in elites time, I'm pretty sure of that.

All BI's campaigns would run on console, I fully believe that.

 

It is only the Editor & content making that makes this a pc game.

 

All previous games in this series (campaign wise) inc A3 I would think, would run on todays consoles imo.

 

But we'll see, I see DayZ is coming to console/s. I can see BI looking at this series for them too, in the future. But let's wait and see.

 

My argument has been from day one of getting ofp, they (BI), should release the editor as it's own thing 'stand alone' for pc and leave the campaigns to wherever, the campaigns are just campaign games. Could be played on anything really.

 

It's the editor that is special in this series and the content making ability. Without those things, these games would not be played as much as they are today. Campaigns take gamers only so far, the editor takes 'gamers that hobby', much further and into decades.. As it has with me now, I'll be entering my third decade with this series in a little under two years, but that is with the editor not the campaigns, not played any of those. Which will be my 5th decade in war-gaming.

 

I have a little interest now in keeping the series pc only, I would like to see it, but that is just the pc player snob in me. There is no real reason now for me to want pc exclusive other than that. But it isn't going to happen, eventually it will go console imo. Still remain pc, but over other platforms too, makes business sense.

 

I'm just happy the editor is always there and can be used for many, many more years. Which I thank BI for. 😉

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, cb65 said:

Actually looks pretty good visually on console.

 

It's pretty much simple ,

 

there are the guys who will play only on a console and the same for the pc players.

So why not having this game in a console , with every typical console abilities and steady performance in MP

(the same for everyone , #think also about PVP)

 

and a game in PC , as there is with all the extra available stuff , that a pc player can have.

 

So actually you could select.

I think also that a dedicated player , would bought both.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, cb65 said:

 

DayZ 1.0 is launching on Xbox One on March 27th!

 

Gameplay Trailer

 

Actually looks pretty good visually on console.

 

Yeah it looks good doesn't it. They have upped the colour etc for sure (I tweak that for A2). Looks nice, view distance looks good.

 

But I don't play zombie games anymore, last I played something similar, although not really zombie, but that was the first Resident Evil, I played on the original playstation in the 90's. Good game really.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/24/2019 at 10:30 PM, VanZant said:

Consoles are directly cancer for good hardcore videogames. They are machines for converting such products into kiddie or comercial shit. They are, essentialy, the fast food of videogames. Period. If you want war on consoles, play cod, fortnite, and other bullshit.

 

Congrats and good bye.

What's with the attitude? 

You think your special because you got a pc? 

I been building, gaming, modding and mapping on pc since the c64 and amiga 500 days... As i grew old as fuck but still wanted to play games, i choose consoles. 

I could order a pc tomorrow that blew you away(money is not an issue) but i don't want to play on pc. 

So does that make me cooler than you kiddo? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/27/2019 at 5:15 PM, wsxcgy said:

those of you in favor of arma on consoles dont seem to understand that it would be nearly impossible to achieve the level of depth and freedom that arma offers if it were ported to console. the controls are incredibly limited, the hardware is limited, and the software is limited. don't fool yourself into thinking that most people play arma for the SP scenarios and the campaign. SP content doesn't really sell shooters much any more, almost nobody cares about campaigns and stories any more. sure, there could be a rudimentary editor in place and maybe even a self-contained multiplayer scene a-la call of duty or something rather than the community-ran servers like we have now, but that would mean stripping away a lot of the things that actually appeal to its playerbase, while also most likely failing to appeal to the majority of the console playerbase. if you think that the gaming community at large has "matured" and is ready for "realistic" and "hardcore" gameplay, you are completely wrong. the majority of "gamers" are more inclined towards easy, fast-paced, immature gameplay, all polar opposites of what arma accomplishes. and as others have said, it would mean either BI develops one extremely dumbed down version and markets it for PC and console (which I might add would probably drive off its entire PC playerbase and make the game a failure on all platforms), or they develop two separate versions of the game which would be a huge strain on their team and be almost impossible to manage. even the big AAA developers struggle with those kinds of things. in the end, it wouldn't be arma, it wouldn't be fun, it wouldn't be successful, and it wouldn't be easy to develop.

Wth? 

Does buying a PC make all of you narrow minded and less smart? 

 

First of all... A console have the exact same parts to all the millions of user as opposed to PC owners, a console developer can then better optimize the game. 

Secondly, a game can always be converted to a console. Sure it will be a slimmer version but still the same game, developed by the same studio or a third party studio. It's still the same game. 

DayZ would never work on console, it's been said thousands of times.... By PC gamers. Weird.. It works for me. 

Skyrim? The witcher 3? Ghost recon and rainbow six (original), opfelite... Are they not the same game because of missing features? How come half life 2 was a hit on console? Portal 2? War thunder? 

 

DayZ right now are one patch behind PC.. Including ALL features except private servers and mods. 

90% of all pc games (not including early access, indies and old pc games) are on consoles. 

 

Bad attitude followed by narrow minds makes you an pc elite... Apperantly. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/28/2019 at 3:02 PM, drdetroit said:

 

 

Most gamers play SP, not MP.  This is shown by all gaming publications you can search.

 

 

 

Really? 

The biggest games on consoles are multiplayer /coop games. 

This is NOT the playstation 2 you tried at a friends house when you were a kid. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DayZ is basically a lot simpler version of ArmA with zombies and it is nowhere near as complex as ArmA. ArmA console would be really bare stripped version of the game where people will wonder why they are playing ArmA when they can have their fast paced/streamlined control games such as CoD, BF series as ArmA is neither fast, streamlined, and it is not even DayZ. Console gamers usually seek different experiences compared to ArmA playerbase. Console games are almost all fast paced. If ArmA was to come to console, it'd have to be a very much a different game than what it is. And most of user made contents require heavy scripting unless you are Zeusing and I don't think Zeus will be intuitive on console controls. And these are all additional development cost.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bent.toe said:

Really? 

The biggest games on consoles are multiplayer /coop games. 

This is NOT the playstation 2 you tried at a friends house when you were a kid. 

 

That may be true, but that is not to say most people prefer mp, they don't.  A vast majority of gamers want SP and story mode, which is not to say they don't venture into the MP mode once in awhile and not to say we don't want both modes.  

 

Hate to burst your presumptive bubble, but I've never played a PS2, only just purchased Xbox1X for RDR2.  Been an avid PC gamer since 1991ish, right out of college.  In college it was mostly Saga Genesis I do believe.  But I do love my console, gonna pickup a few console only titles (auto racing).  Very surprised how damn good RDR2 performs and looks on the Xbox one actually.  Great friggin game too!

 

EDIT: although I do play MP mode in ARMA3 exclusively, but Alive campaign mission where I can have an AI squad and my buddies can jump into one of those slots anytime....the irony, playing sp in mp mode!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bent.toe said:

Surprise... All games looks and play good on consoles. Welcome to 2019..sorry your stuck in 2003.

p4VJHkd.png

look at every video comparing the game graphics on consoles vs PC(basically 75 percent of content on Digital Foundry YT channel)

battlefield 4, the evil within, Sekiro, Fallout 76, Lichdom Battlemage, APB:Reloaded, PUBG, GTA: Online, etc.. (these are the ones i remember that had/have perf issues on consoles)

actually consoles had more comparable graphics quality vs pc in the era of PS2(atleast at the start) then they have today in the PS4/X1X era(even at its start in 2013)
and no, the biggest games on consoles are Sony/Microsoft exclusives, but Microsoft is actually clever enough to bring them to PCs too( all halo games etc..)
but sure, enjoy your cinematic 30 fps and aim assists

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, bent.toe said:

First of all... A console have the exact same parts to all the millions of user as opposed to PC owners, a console developer can then better optimize the game.

I think you're missing the point, console hardware is much weaker than most PC hardware and the console platform simply isn't as strong. optimization isn't magic, you dont wave a wand and poof the game is optimized and runs smooth as butter. there's all kinds of hardware and engine considerations you have to take into account. and its hard to clean up the way the engine works and the way the engine uses resources to make it run better. developers don't have an "optimize" button, its a complicated thing. and then we're not even mentioning how differently consoles run games compared to PCs.

4 hours ago, bent.toe said:

Secondly, a game can always be converted to a console. Sure it will be a slimmer version but still the same game, developed by the same studio or a third party studio. It's still the same game.

if its trimmed down into something totally different with a different experience can you truly call it the same game? at that point, its really just the same name. I don't think you understand this, Arma 3 as we have it on PC is simply not possible within the confines of a console's hardware and operation system. they just don't support all of the things Arma does. they don't work like that. this isn't PC elitism, this is simple facts. PCs and consoles work in different ways and do different things. they are NOT the same and do NOT have the same capabilities. unfortunately, Arma caters mostly to the capabilities of a PC. if you strip away all of that "PC specific" stuff from arma, you get a game like operation flashpoint dragon rising, and we should all know how that game went.

4 hours ago, bent.toe said:

DayZ would never work on console, it's been said thousands of times.... By PC gamers. Weird.. It works for me. 

Skyrim? The witcher 3? Ghost recon and rainbow six (original), opfelite... Are they not the same game because of missing features? How come half life 2 was a hit on console? Portal 2? War thunder?

 

DayZ right now are one patch behind PC.. Including ALL features except private servers and mods. 

90% of all pc games (not including early access, indies and old pc games) are on consoles. 

I've never seen ANYONE say DayZ wouldn't work on console, it would work and it does work. DayZ is a very simple game, it doesn't really compare to arma at all. And all those other games? their console versions are the exact same as the PC versions, all of those were made for consoles, and all of those don't really match what arma does or is meant to do. these are apples to oranges comparisons and pretty darn invalid.

 

look my dude, straw-man fallacies and personal insults aren't how you make an argument. I don't think you really have any idea what you're talking about and if I'm gonna be honest, for someone so ready to call others narrow-minded, you seem pretty narrow-minded yourself.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, wsxcgy said:

I think you're missing the point, console hardware is much weaker than most PC hardware and the console platform simply isn't as strong. optimization isn't magic, you dont wave a wand and poof the game is optimized and runs smooth as butter. there's all kinds of hardware and engine considerations you have to take into account. and its hard to clean up the way the engine works and the way the engine uses resources to make it run better. developers don't have an "optimize" button, its a complicated thing. and then we're not even mentioning how differently consoles run games compared to PCs.

if its trimmed down into something totally different with a different experience can you truly call it the same game? at that point, its really just the same name. I don't think you understand this, Arma 3 as we have it on PC is simply not possible within the confines of a console's hardware and operation system. they just don't support all of the things Arma does. they don't work like that. this isn't PC elitism, this is simple facts. PCs and consoles work in different ways and do different things. they are NOT the same and do NOT have the same capabilities. unfortunately, Arma caters mostly to the capabilities of a PC. if you strip away all of that "PC specific" stuff from arma, you get a game like operation flashpoint dragon rising, and we should all know how that game went.

I've never seen ANYONE say DayZ wouldn't work on console, it would work and it does work. DayZ is a very simple game, it doesn't really compare to arma at all. And all those other games? their console versions are the exact same as the PC versions, all of those were made for consoles, and all of those don't really match what arma does or is meant to do. these are apples to oranges comparisons and pretty darn invalid.

 

look my dude, straw-man fallacies and personal insults aren't how you make an argument. I don't think you really have any idea what you're talking about and if I'm gonna be honest, for someone so ready to call others narrow-minded, you seem pretty narrow-minded yourself.

Perhaps he forgot that all those games he mentioned were built for console first then ported to PC. Which means, there are no 'missing features' on those games to begin with where as ArmA would lose a lot of features that make it unique.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So much toxicity in a community that isn't normally like this. I'm ashamed of some of you.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, R0adki11 said:

A reminder to all forum users in this thread, we do not tolerate flame-baiting or insulting remarks on this forum. Please follow our forum rules.

Here's how it should be, in my opinion..

You can, and indeed should attack someone's argument. But you should never attack the person. As we say in football; play the ball, not the man.

  • Like 1

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

×