GRAW2

[maxqubit 1]

Well, today GRAW2 was announced link and with that my hope for a return to the old GR(IT) glorydays on XBL is gone:(

Now, on pc you/we are lucky, there is (modded) OFP and ArmA to come but what about consoles. On xbox we used to have GR, GRIT and (albeit too late) Elite but now ... on 360? There is simply no serious tac shooter anymore.

I find that very hard to digest. Millions of gamers, with the finest of hardware, and the smoothest of connection (xbl), of which a small but imho significant percentage is interested in a serious tac shooter are in fact left with NOTHING.

There is this big void, i surely hope ArmA will be ported to 360. Kill me anytime for my thoughts about this, i have already decided to revert partly to pc (and thereby leaving 20-30 good virtual GR friends behind) so the anti-console pc boys have their 'victory' ... (but i my book a real victory is when ArmA proves it CAN work and be succesfull on console)

[coderdfox 0]

I think OFP:Elite was a test to see if it could sell, from what I remember it didnt sell the best. One major plus a PC has over a console is the mod's. Mod's keep OFP still going today. Without mods, could Vanilla OFP have lasted as long?

Bottom line is this has been talk about over and over and you'll never find the answer your looking for.

[Alaskan_Viking 0]

I didn't like GR IT at all, I really liked GR2 though, that was the best game for XBOX LIVE IMHO,got so many free weapons, skines, and maps, even better then Halo2.

[Tactical Jerky 0]

This is exactly how I see it Max there is a huge demand for a true serious military game for the 360. Especially now that they're losing alot of people that aren't satisfied with how the Ghost Recon series (the once only worthy tactical shooter on Xbox) has turned into.

I bet the reason that OFP:E didn't sell well had nothing to do with that console gamers aren't into these kind of games. I know lot's of people that definately would buy ArmA if it would be released on console. OFP:E is in it's way definately a good game but let's be honest it looked and feeled absolutely too dated for the time it was released. I had that game for a long time on my "games to buy list" but they kept delaying it up to even years iirc. And when it finally came out a few months later the 360 already was in stores. So lot's of people simply wouldn't buy it because of that.

And I absolutely agree that by playing it on pc you have many advantages like mods, keyboard etc. Altough same can be said for console. But that's up to everyone for himself to decide whether he likes it on pc or console.

[dmitri 0]

I could rant for hours about the demise of Rainbow Six and the Ghost Recon franchises. OFP\ARMA and Swat 4 are the tactical gamers last stand.

[Heatseeker 0]

I didn't like GR IT at all, I really liked GR2 though, that was the best game for XBOX LIVE IMHO,got so many free weapons, skines, and maps, even better then Halo2.

Living with the facts, a good sample post there..

GR was an half decent PC/xbox game, it was limited by many tech limitations of a clunky and very outdated graphics engine, it was no technical marvel but it had an interesting design, sound, atmosphere and even gameplay plus it was an original game, i loved it for a couple months, then played it on my very rare flashpoint breaks only.

GR2 was a xbox/ps2 exclusive, since they were after the big money they made a product that would appeal to the console masses, faster, flashier and well... plain dumb. To justify the cancelation of the PC version (port) the publisher himself aknowledged that the game was not appealling enough to the hardcore and loyal fanbase of the tactical series (the PC croud), yaba yaba...

Then came GRAW, and this time they even got some guys to make a PC version (made on the run and fubared behiond patching due to a very short development period), even more flashy, action paced and with no real similarity with the original product...

What can you expect of GRAW2? Another flashy consolised pos? Most definetly!

____

The good thing here is that Arma is not being affected by the console "polution" that turns gold into.. shit, everyone should feel happy about it .

[Alaskan_Viking 0]

____

The good thing here is that Arma is not being affected by the console "polution" that turns gold into.. shit, everyone should feel happy about it .

Unless you have an Xbox, and NOT a 2,000 dollar PC...

[Placebo 29]

As this isn't strictly related to ArmA I'm moving to OT.

[maxqubit 1]

I could rant for hours about the demise of Rainbow Six and the Ghost Recon franchises. OFP\ARMA and Swat 4 are the tactical gamers last stand.

That are the facts ...

... but could anyone explain me WHY this has to be like this?

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">Question 7:

Do you play other military shooters out there, or online ones like Battlefield-series? Any favourites and why?

Paul: with the way that many games are developed and marketed these days it's quite hard not to be cynical here. It seems that most modern shooters aren't designed to be played, they're designed to be looked at. There are a few games that are released that seem to remember that gameplay should be a fundamental part of a game rather than than being a one trick graphical pony, but that seems to be the exception these days. More and more, games that are released are generic and diluted in terms of gameplay. Whilst it's quite nice that game development has grown to be a multi-billion dollar industry, it's a great shame indeed that the majority of games released are developed with gameplay as a secondary factor.

link

It's like applying the 2nd law of Thermodynamics to the games world 'Games have to become dumber and dumber'

So we started with pong, pacman and spaceinvaders in the 1980's ... we saw the heigths around 2000 and now the decline forever?????

Hahaha, that is BULLSH*T:)

Of course there is 'a market' for intelligent games. But yes, perhaps ArmA is 2000 styled, and perhaps Game2 is more into the 2010 styled (with proper RPG elements woven into a realistic game world)

(now to be really OT i could see some parallels between the 'dumbed down' politics of e.g. the Bush administration but seen in many Europe countries as well and the 'dumbed down' state of games ... perhaps Bush is the political equivalent of BF/GRAW ... I think it is about time to get some intelligence back into business:)

[Metal Heart 0]

It's not that there isn't a market for intelligent games, it's just much smaller than the market for dumb games. So profitwise it's only smart to make dumb games. Unless you're a small independant developer that is. Then it might be best to go for the intelligent game vacuum because you probably couldn't compete with the big boys anyway in the dumb games front with their flashy graphics engines, huge teams, professional voice actors et cetera.

[CameronMcDonald 146]

Can't forget bored storylines, 2D characters and all the other cellophane they stash their uber graphical 1 trick ponies in.

[maxqubit 1]

It's not that there isn't a market for intelligent games, it's just much smaller than the market for dumb games. So profitwise it's only smart to make dumb games. Unless you're a small independant developer that is. Then it might be best to go for the intelligent game vacuum because you probably couldn't compete with the big boys anyway in the dumb games front with their flashy graphics engines, huge teams, professional voice actors et cetera.

Profitwise yes, but in general it is dumb to put profits/money before everything else. In the long run money won't buy you hapiness. Alas, everybody will find this out eventually:)

But i/we don't ask BIS to make ArmA COMPETE with BF/GRAW but to take its place inside the game universe. That is, to fill the void which is the intelligent, serious, tac shooter market (big or small, this segment IS there)

Now, ArmA obviously WILL continue the OFP way and fill this segment on PC and we will see how big the segment is ATM (i'm really curious about this) ... but my main point was about consoles and specifically the 360. On 360 there is this void, this segment STILL TO BE FILLED ... it is just waiting for a game like ArmA

But it is not only up to BIS but also to the publishers and ultimately up to M$ ... cause if this void is not filled ppl will find the place where they can get these games. Yep it is the pc. I for one am partly going back from 360 to PC ... now, is that a good thing for M$???? In first instance they won't care cause for every 1 intelligent gamer leaving the 360, they get 10 dumb gamers back.

But on second thought it might be not so smart in the long run ... if consoles continues to be associate with 'dumb Halo bunny hopping' kids i think they have to worry.

I also don't quite understand M$ and publishers. There are several serious game coming on 360 ... BIOSHOCK, FORZA, MASSEFFECT, but a truely serious shooter is lacking, i just don't get this.

[Adam Ferante 0]

I wouldnt nail the coffin up yet, I think theres a big chance we will see armed assault on the xbox 360, through the big niche in the market and the relative ease of being able to port PC games over, I have already seen smaller developers release on the 360 and BIS have the possability of releasing community mods through the xbox live market place to keep the games lifespan up aswel as its community (though I doubt they would choose to do so). And yes I do think theres a big segment of console gamers that are into the more intelegent gaming - ofcorse there are -, I am many of my friends are these.

Ultimately its upto the developers to dumd down games, you dont NEED a huge segment of the market, you dont NEED to dumb the games down and its absolute shite when people say that consoles destroy games. Its the monopolistic corporations like Ubisoft and EA.

[Metal Heart 0]

Quote[/b] ]Profitwise yes, but in general it is dumb to put profits/money before everything else. In the long run money won't buy you hapiness. Alas, everybody will find this out eventually:)

It's a nice thought but I'm afraid that the stock owners of UBI would not agree.

Quote[/b] ]But it is not only up to BIS but also to the publishers and ultimately up to M$ ... cause if this void is not filled ppl will find the place where they can get these games. Yep it is the pc. I for one am partly going back from 360 to PC ... now, is that a good thing for M$? In first instance they won't care cause for every 1 intelligent gamer leaving the 360, they get 10 dumb gamers back.

But on second thought it might be not so smart in the long run ... if consoles continues to be associate with 'dumb Halo bunny hopping' kids i think they have to worry.

It's good for Microsoft either way as Windows is still by far the best OS for gaming and simulators (not professional simulators of course). I think this is one of the biggest single reasons why so many people still use Windows and not some other OS that might even be absolutely free and be a better choice for them considering everything else. Of course Windows is also very easy to use and everyone already knows how it works but that's not really a big factor for the more experienced users.

[maxqubit 1]

Quote[/b] ]Profitwise yes, but in general it is dumb to put profits/money before everything else. In the long run money won't buy you hapiness. Alas, everybody will find this out eventually:)

It's a nice thought but I'm afraid that the stock owners of UBI would not agree.

Stock owners aren't happy ppl. Stock owners are worrying ppl, worrying about their stocks ... Are they going up or down? What shall i do, Buy or sell? ... saying things like 'I could have made more' or 'I could have lost less' ... if you don't worry about your stocks, you in fact don't need stocks at all. The worrying is the 'fun' part of stocks;)

(I know, i was once a stock owner, there was this tension, it was exiting at times, but happy? Nope, it never made me really happy ... without stocks i am happier than before. As said, ppl will get this eventually:)

OT: Glad this is OT:)

[Heatseeker 0]

Well i disagree, i dont think there is much market for a true tac sim on the console market, GRAW is imo as far as it will go and still sell.

I think that the chances of Arma being released for console depend on how well the game does on PC, only then will everyone else become interested, the fact that only half a dozen console players ask about it is enough evidence.

[maxqubit 1]

And yes I do think theres a big segment of console gamers that are into the more intelegent gaming - ofcorse there are -, I am many of my friends are these.

Nice observation. It is the same in my experience. In 'my' xbl GR clan there are several friends (Tactical J being one of them;) who would jump on ArmA/360 the minute it is available. On last count at least 9 out of 24 is very interested.

[maxqubit 1]

Well i disagree, i dont think there is much market for a true tac sim on the console market, GRAW is imo as far as it will go and still sell.

I think that the chances of Arma being released for console depend on how well the game does on PC, only then will everyone else become interested, the fact that only half a dozen console players ask about it is enough evidence.

C'mon now. Ppl aren't telepatic, they can't know if they aren't told. That is right marketing for you.

In creating a 'good' hype just make a kickass single player and multiplayer demo of ArmA/360 and put it on XBL marketplace months before the final release. Such a free download will be tried by many xbl gamers. You know, this free demo XBL thing is soooo easy that most friends i know download all of them. It is a very good way to get the 'ArmA' word spread.

No hassle, no issues, no costs ... just click 'download ArmA demo' and 2 hours later they play the damned thing ... now, your guess is that only a tiny fraction will be interested ... my guess is that at least 10% of the shooter gamers will be seriously interested in ArmA once they have played the demo.

Now 10% of 200.000 dl's is a nice start to get things 'the word' going:)

But the demo has to be kickass, like paradrop right into some frantic action and stuff ... who could resist that? ... The ArmA experience will dawn onto those gamers as soon as they realize that they can and are free to 'eject' before arriving at the drop zone (which you can't in GR) ... they find themselves in the woods ... wtf woods, i have to walk, wtf ... and then they see a enemy jeep passing and they think, let's shoot the driver and take the jeep (which you can't in GR) and head over to the battlezone were the battle already rages (which you don't have in GR) ... and then the awe will begin ... THIS TITLE IS A MUST HAVE:)

[Heatseeker 0]

But the demo has to be kickass, like paradrop right into some frantic action and stuff ... who could resist that?

That is why many people play CoD, because they find anything more realistic to be boring, i expect Arma to reach much higher than that .

M$ knows what sells on console and what doesnt, thats why the GR and R6 series were ridicularised, Armed Assault would sell on the console market, if it was significantly dumbed down for more casual gamers. OPFE wasnt dumbed down enough... we just cant have it all i guess .

[benreeper 0]

HeatSeeker you took the words right out of my mouth.

Having to make the demo "KickASS" and having to plop you right in action is the reason why we are glad that ArmA wasn't "consolized". Console gamers are not the same as pc gamers and they do not enjoy the same types of games. Max you just made the point for why a game like this should NEVER be a console game. To appeal to console gamers the games must be action packed, loud, and easy enough to work on a game pad. Why do you think it took so long to port OFP to the XBox: they had to make it work on the limited hardware and within the constraints of the gamepad. These are indisputable facts, and the type of gamer that cannot afford a $2000 computer is not going to enjoy a slower placed, cerebral type of game.

Oh, BTW, my $600 new ArmA computer is cheaper than a PS3 for all what you get with it.

--Ben

[Adam Ferante 0]

But the demo has to be kickass, like paradrop right into some frantic action and stuff ... who could resist that?

That is why many people play CoD, because they find anything more realistic to be boring, i expect Arma to reach much higher than that .

M$ knows what sells on console and what doesnt, thats why the GR and R6 series were ridicularised, Armed Assault would sell on the console market, if it was significantly dumbed down for more casual gamers. OPFE wasnt dumbed down enough... we just cant have it all i guess .

i dont know where you got that information but its not Microsoft telling ubisoft to dumb down their games for the consoles its ubisosft market research team looking at what they think people want on consoles, and being consoles alot of the gamers are more casual and would be more likely to buy thier more action orientated games but this is because these companies are going for the big $$ and massive sales by selling to the higher demographic. Like i said before you dont NEED to sell thousands and thousands but then again its not as if armed assault wont sell mere hundreds. either way its a perfectly realistic prospect to release it on the 360.

OPFE didnt sell because it wasn't dumbed down enough is completely unfounded there are 100 other reasons it didnt sell, but then again it did sell at least about 6000+ copies - which considering it was a 4 year old game that was under publicised i think it would be nieve to complain. Now looking at armed assault it has everything going for it, A gap in the market, The XBL market place is a big publicity tool just by putting a demo out and ofcorse its easy ability to port over.

Id like to know what some of the BIS staff think

[maxqubit 1]

Guys, i think you are totally wrong here and misread my 'kickass' reference.

I mean with 'kickass' that you SHOW what ArmA is about, and that is a.o. FREEDOM. I pointed out the differences with GR as an example. The 'kickass' thing IS NOT a big flashy explosion BUT THE FREEDOM to choose your actions without being limited and to face the consequence of your choices.

Go back in your memory and think what exactly was THE thing you liked/loved about OFP ... Now, what was it? ... not really the gfx, not even the realism an sich, nope it was the freedom and the believable world. You were stuck in the woods, and f*ck you had to walk, if you liked it or not ... and from that point on it dawned that OFP was something special because the 'believable' world kind of created the realism without further pretence ...

Now, it is very simple, the feeling you had 5 years ago must be seeded into the gamers (on pc and i hope on console) who just never played ofp/arma ...

You guys tend to forget what it was that made you be attracted to the game long ago, but you have to take a step back ... there are thousands perhaps another million of gamers who still have to take their first steps with ArmA ... you can't force ArmA down their throats ... you CAN let them taste ArmA ... THAT'S what i mean with 'kickass' ... the first bite, and this first bite is imho better served when implemented as a free choice paradrop onto a hectic battle than some dull training stage. That is just plain common sense imho.

[Call911-AGE- 0]

If it was'nt for PC we would'nt have the great games we do today, look at how many games originally started on PC then were made for console.

[maxqubit 1]

If it was'nt for PC we would'nt have the great games we do today, look at how many games originally started on PC then were made for console.

Games are NOT made/started on PC, the are made/started as an idea/vision in the mind of some dev ... and he/she USES a pc to create the game because that what pc's basically are for, for development.

A good game has nothing to do with the housing of some silicon chips.

For the sake of argument let suppose ArmA would come (not dumbed down) only on 360 and NOT on pc. Would you still prefer the pc or would you go buy a 360+ArmA ... there is your answer. (Oh, and i know about 'the mods', that's why you use a pc, to dev the mods ... but you could play them on console, i don't see any problem, it is not that a mod thinks 'i don't want to run inside a console housing':)

[Adam Ferante 0]

HeatSeeker you took the words right out of my mouth.  

Having to make the demo "KickASS" and having to plop you right in action is the reason why we are glad that ArmA wasn't "consolized".  Console gamers are not the same as pc gamers and they do not enjoy the same types of games.  Max you just made the point for why a game like this should NEVER be a console game.  To appeal to console gamers the games must be action packed, loud, and easy enough to work on a game pad.  Why do you think it took so long to port OFP to the XBox: they had to make it work on the limited hardware and within the constraints of the gamepad.  These are indisputable facts,  and the type of gamer that cannot afford a $2000 computer is not going to enjoy a slower placed, cerebral type of game.  

Oh, BTW, my $600 new ArmA computer is cheaper than a PS3 for all what you get with it.

--Ben

<Console gamers are not the same as pc gamers and they do not enjoy the same types of games.>

Thats another statement that seems a completely unfounded untrue statement and somthing I think the thousands operation flashpoint elite gamers would disagree with

<Max you just made the point for why a game like this should NEVER be a console game.>

Why? why should armed assault never be a console game? will BIS change the direction of thier development after years because they release on a new console platform and in turn change thier PC counterpart against the whole armed assault community? If BIS where money obsessed customer grabbers they would be making the sims not a realistic battlefield experience - somthing they could take to consoles without changing

<Why do you think it took so long to port OFP to the XBox: they had to make it work on the limited hardware and within the constraints of the gamepad>

Yes im afraid to say your 100% correct here they spent 4 years trying to map the controls to the gamepad (which is a good thing they took so long the controls were very good) and the limited hardware - oh no wait thats crap, the problem was with the xbox it was the complex coding issues that needed to be ported over somthing thats now irrelevent to the 360 as its a new more port friendly system as is the "limited hardware" indisputable fact.

<These are indisputable facts, and the type of gamer that cannot afford a $2000 computer is not going to enjoy a slower placed, cerebral type of game>

Yes, and dogs cant look up and Cows cant walk up stairs and people who dont spend $2000 on a computer dont enjoy slower paced, cerebral games.

I hate it when people dicect other peoples posts on the internet but i feel I have to when there are so many biast unjustified views just based on the modern direction on the console game market.