Don't need all the eye-candy!

[icebreakr 3107]

Since most of us here been with OFP since and even before the release of first game, we would like to hear what matters the most - playability. Please stop posting the screenshots and all the eye candy info and tell us more about realism settings and playability, that's what adult mil-sim players expect from ArmA.

Please don't make a mistake and don't give us just an a graphical upgrade, because that might just last a few months instead of a year or even more!

We trust that your team can bring us the game that will live out your and our dreams.

Create something that all of all will enjoy, give the power to the multiplayer hosts (then the game would be played by arcade loving bunnyhoppers (players of COD, BF2...) and also milsim fans (realism mod users) based on the host settings).

You don't need a good story, because making a great "playground" players just might be the storymakers...

[Batukhan 0]

Well.. it's hard to show anything other than graphics only with static screenshots. They've said to have improved the gameplay. I trust they have (will).

[ziiip 1]

Yeah, playability is very important too, but I also wanted new grahics, and I love it.

You sound like you don't like how it looks.

[dachrinne 0]

i think youll be always be able to downgrade the graphics to your like or the capazity of the graphics card

[AiRBLaDE 0]

I would expect AA to be atleast as good as OFP elite, probably better, since the PC can handle more.

[advocatexxx 0]

If you ask me I'd be perfectly happy with Resistance-level graphics if it meant that Armor would move and behave realisticially, with multiple hit zones, if it meant collisions are improved, if it meant better urban combat.

[CsonkaPityu 0]

Well, in my humble opinion eyecandy and gameplay go hand in hand in a game about modern combat. I mean if you see the enemy you kill him, or atleast try to, if there are a lot of things blocking your view, like dense grass or smoke/dust effects, you can't target the enemy. Visibility is important, it affects what tactics are employed a lot. Camoing, both for infantry and vehicles becomes a viable thing to do.

I mean sure there are a lot of things which don't matter, like how water looks like, or the sky, but a lot of things do have an impact on gameplay.

[jtec 0]

Like it or not gfx add to the overall feel of the game and flashpoints gfx are outdated and need to make use of all them need shiney gfx cards we all have. Personally im hoping BIS dont take too much time on models and missions and just let the community build upon it like they did with the original.

[Randy 0]

If you ask me I'd be perfectly happy with Resistance-level graphics if it meant that Armor would move and behave realisticially, with multiple hit zones, if it meant collisions are improved, if it meant better urban combat.

A lot of big ifs.

Improved graphics are essential, poor visuals can severly detract from atmosphere and appeal on many levels, even to the 'hardcore' as much of a pretentious term as it is.

The big question mark however, is upon developers who sacrafice essential gameplay elements, for the simple reason that they want to create an instantly consumable product, that appeals to the widest possible audience.

BIS still seems to be driven by its thankfully ambitious design goals of a realistic simulator and so these central elements of realism and playability have equal if not more weighting than graphical elements. But just remember, graphical realism is essential too.

[alx 20]

For me the single biggest good point about game play in OFP was the size of the environment. The feeling of having a real virtual world to explore, rather than a confind level was fantastic and has never been exceeded in a game that I know of.

With the new map tipped to be 400 km2 (20 km x 20 km), it should get even better. That's 20 minutes of driving at 60 km/hr and quite a few hours at walking speed.

However, this will not be effective if it is a sterile landscape. Let's hope they have a good number of quirky geological and man-made features to make the environment distinctive and with potential.

Oh, and updating graphics would be great, although I feel making the soldiers walk and turn like real men is a higher priority.

[hoot 0]

If you ask me I'd be perfectly happy with Resistance-level graphics if it meant that Armor [...], with multiple hit zones, [...].

you simply say that BIS should -rarefy- the hitzones, right? i'm just asking, because i have already found some hitzones ...the turret, the barrel, the tracks... ...the rest is clear as daylight...

[CameronMcDonald 146]

I want a shouted/hand-movement command system, without all the dialogs (though General Barron's is nice, IRL there isn't a pause every two seconds).

[Chunder 0]

You couldn't really call me a graphics freak on anything, No game I've ever had have I made full use of the graphics available. I guess you could call me a large percentage of the market - the student that doesn't have the best system because they can't afford it.

I loved operation flashpoint when it came out. After awhile I got bored of it more because of my connection than anything else.

No 'one thing' really makes me anymore happier about the lpress release of Armed assault, I'm quite glad that another game is being made and I'm quite glad that some graphical features are being improved.

I don't think the graphics being as good as they can be really makes any difference to how we play the game - as to what they are now - we are at an evolutionary point for gaming and I think they've chosen a nice graphics level for Armed assault.

Im a big atmosphere person. I LOVE the atmosphere created by the game and part of that atmosphere is being able to 'live the game', where when I'm being shot at or something I'm really trying to avoid being shot, or where your heart is pumping like when your squad gets all shot up and your left alone in the OFP CWC. To me the larger environment will make me feel a lot smaller in my role on the battlefield, and make me a lot more worried about the potential threats.

One thing that did worry me about the game and I think it is my only worry - is the land environment. In Australia there arn't actually that many forests apart from national parks and such , so a lot of it is cleared, but as a general rule of thumb, the hillier it is the more vegetated it is, the more rough the terrain is, and otherwise. Gulleys and such have a reasonable amount of shrubbery and lots of rocks, and our creeks generally tend to have bigger bushes, and trees behind them that you could easily hide behind if someone was firing bullets in your direction (being hardwood and all) As such creek zones are cruicial battle spots and such and from a graphics point of view, hopefully vegetation along these areas is noted. It doesn't gerneally have to be heaps of it, my imagination does the rest.

I am really looking forward to the multiplay experience, and the large size of the island. Can't wait to be waiting in a UH-60 or something and receive a call for extraction, having to dod 30 odd enemies in a multiplayer zone. That or, just hiding in a bush, knowing that enemy will be specifically scanning and even shooting into the bushes to kill me. Being able to dig in in deformable terrain like a sniper does so as not to be in any suspect areas is what matters to me.

All in all I agree with the sentiment, Graphics only need to be so good for me it's more of a factor of being beleivable... thats what matters to me. Between most hills there is a creek of some sort. Not modelling nature to reflect it is what detracts to me. I'm very happy with the press release - I'm also very happy with the screenshots provided. I'm not in for super graphics - any machine i get to play the game won't be able to handle the best graphics. BTW, last time i got a new PC was to play the Original OPFP, now it's to play armed assault.

Best of luck to creating a successfull game I'm difinitely looking forward to it!

Chunder

[Web(13) 0]

I want good gameplay + eye candy. graphics is important. If your pc cant handle the graphics, then you can turn it down - like in every game. If it can handle it, its even better.

[Mahatma 0]

I want good gameplay + eye candy. graphics is important. If your pc cant handle the graphics, then you can turn it down - like in every game. If it can handle it, its even better.

I agree with you.Gfx helps with immersion of a game,and that-to me-is very important.But for AA to work (like opf) it will be the package that will matter,so I guess we will see improvement in all departments.

The community for opf is very nice,but I for one finds the mods for the game severely degrading my ability to play it online I hope that the game-like ravenshield-enables people to download necessary files from the server.Although that may be either unrealistic,or puts limitations on mod'ing.

Is there a site which have the 'addon' folder with all the community files in it for download? I know it would be HUGE,but it would simplify things:)

[robert(uk) 0]

I hope that the game-like ravenshield-enables people to download necessary files from the server.Although that may be either unrealistic,or puts limitations on mod'ing.

Yeah this is something that is worrying me, as I don't particularly fancy spending hours searching for the neccesary files to join a particular server...

[hoot 0]

[...] Although that may be either unrealistic,or puts limitations on mod'ing.[...]

Got the point?!

OFPWATCH is a nice workaround to sync your flashpoint client with any server you want to fight at - with mods, addons...whatever! but just imagine your gameserver has to send 50mb addons per player and maybe every "turn"...rings hollow to me. a solution for small sized addons would be fine, true, but a solution implemented into arma serving any filesize could harm the gameplay more than it possibly simplifies.

[Chunder 0]

Hey - I'm relitively new to the forum here but I thought I would have a go at a new topic. Its about what I think is what I am looking forward to in Armed assault.

There are lots of demands on developers by us the community, and most of those are either about 'graphics' or what we term as 'reaslism'.

I want to clarify that when people point out wanting better graphics - better graphics arn't the be - all to end - all in the game.

I say that with many years experiance in wait for, and playing updates, and getting PC's specifically for games. A game developer may want good graphics but must wiegh it up against who can use those graphics, and the time constraints given a release date, or, focussing on other areas given a smaller sized developement team.

I've rarely ever been able to use full graphics. But I've played games that have had nothing in gameplay going for them, and getting the graphics perfect. Thats why to me it isn't all about eye candy.

Other things that get brought up that I can't seem to be presuaded on is the ability to Swim, with much combat gear at all, let alone the real life chances that any tacticean would seriously consider swimming as part of an operation. Only as escape!

Long grass- yes long grass exists in some area's but not all. Given the nature of islands, and their small sized villiages, and their geolocation, relitively short distances inbetween, indicates a more farming type sustained economy. Most obscure islands are sustained by their farming industries Which means livestock and cultivated fields, which means long grass is not present in many areas, the tallest things being crops. These days crops are bread to have little height, to eliminate chaff processing in headers and such - which means the crops arn't very high themselves - but certainly high enough tob e prone in and not be seen.

Having said that, grasses are still likely to predominate in gorges and other innaccessable areas, along with rocks, streams, scrubland etc. Rarely is there a large abundance of grasses etc except in zones excluded to livestock like national parkes, and gorges / gulleys - and for that matter, along roadways.

Walking outside in farmland country, u can come across a stream which has bullrushes/reeds in it, thick hardwood trees, collapsed dead logs, and thorn bushes. Infact, your more likely to step on a cowpat than walk through thick grass that has been untouched by livestock. Which would indicate that thick grass is more or less unlikely with the desity of townships in the island modelled.

Cheifly, I like environments that are beleivable. When I walk between hillsides I expect it to be damp, or muddy, or a stream with relevent vegetation than nothing. - there are exceptions. Some farmer even might have it dammed as a supply to his livestock in summer, with a little island in the middle of it if your lucky! Now, imagine your jeep getting bogged in the mud between hillsides... or in the sand in the desert, or a boxthorn in the tyre because u decided to drive through a thorn bush in it.

Not everything on the battlefield is noted either - in Armed assualt we are going to have detroyable bridges - perhaps mobile bridges/pontoons would be good - in real warfare, mobile bridges are a big thing for consideration when conducting an advance, and most countries have them in their inventories. Nothing worse than more than likely being able to call in a support unit to lay a bridge across a stream or otherwise, but not being able to in game.

My brain does all the other sorts of imaginations to fill in the gaps. All the environment has to do is set the scenes.

And, for the gimmicky little things - like being able to throw a paddy - mellon up into the air with your left hand, and bring a shotgun to bear on the object and blowing it to bits. I think that a pick up and throw option in game would be most usefull for picking up rocks, or melons, or anything, if it wasn't onerous. being able to do little things like that make the game a bit more funny. Being able to pick up a rotten bit of fruit and throw it at someone for it to splatter over him.

I know it's my two cents - just trying to get people to think outside the norms.

Chunder

[brataccas 0]

this sounds just like this thread:

http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....71;st=0

[-DirTyDeeDs--Ziggy- 0]

An idea struck me last night, and it relates to this topic.

Dynamic weather and its ability to change the environment.

I live in the Northeastern portion of the US, and I experience 4 seasons throughout the year. How possible is climate change in the OFP/Arma engine? I dont mean that you travel to a different part of one island, but rather having weather patterns mimic the 4 season and affecting the way some or all of the island/landmass looks.

I know that time and weather can be scripted to be random and/or change during a set time limit on a map, however it would be incredibly more realistic if it would change based on the time of year.

For example, imagine how incredible it would be to view Autumn in OFP/ARMA as the colors on the leaves change colors, or how open waters of a lake could freeze during the winter!

I think this would add an incredible realism effect to the game that could change the way games are developed!

Please consider even the possibility to create a mod that could do such a thing, if it isnt possible to put in the default game.

[AfrographX 0]

-Ziggy- @ Feb. 19 2006,15:53)]An idea struck me last night, and it relates to this topic.

Dynamic weather and its ability to change the environment.

I live in the Northeastern portion of the US, and I experience 4 seasons throughout the year. How possible is climate change in the OFP/Arma engine? I dont mean that you travel to a different part of one island, but rather having weather patterns mimic the 4 season and affecting the way some or all of the island/landmass looks.

I know that time and weather can be scripted to be random and/or change during a set time limit on a map, however it would be incredibly more realistic if it would change based on the time of year.

For example, imagine how incredible it would be to view Autumn in OFP/ARMA as the colors on the leaves change colors, or how open waters of a lake could freeze during the winter!

I think this would add an incredible realism effect to the game that could change the way games are developed!

Please consider even the possibility to create a mod that could do such a thing, if it isnt possible to put in the default game.

you could just do 4 different versions of an island one for each season, like it's done with some islands in ofp already

[paragraphic l 2]

it would be great if it is possible to have those 4 different season islands be loaded as the default island depending on the date of your mission.

and i would like to see, to increase realism, when it rains or snows that some area's change into wet or white parts. dynamicly generated rain pudles and piles of snow.

[cain2001 0]

The ground textures is the problem, but as for Trees and such, I could be scriped. You place the summer trees when its summer and when it turns to winter they are replaced. This could also autogenerate trees and bushes meaning, you go pass a place once, the next time, its totaly diffrent.

Problem is that playing bushes through editor generates alot of lag, but it would be sweet!

[StealthTiger 0]

NIM has released a dynamic weather addon that simulates seasonal weather - it doesn't do things like add snow textures to the ground though which is I guess what you want?

[-DirTyDeeDs--Ziggy- 0]

hmm ... give a link.

mostly I am interested in the time and day controlling the weather and environment of the landmass

If it could be controlled like that... You could script a map to be a different season everytime you played it