GRAW2

[benreeper 0]

Sure there are several thousand console gamers that like games like OFP but there are several million console gamers that do not. That is where the money is and publishers want to sell to the most for the least, regardless of the type of game or quality of the game. The is beared out by the types of games mostly purchased on consoles.

I never said BIS were money grabbers or whatever; this is why ArmA is a PC game and not a console game. They are making a game they would want to play and they can afford to do it because OFP sold more than a million copies. Publishers don't make games (for the most part) they sell them and they want to make money (for the most part) on games not play them.

You're wrong about the porting to the XBox and the XBox being irrevelant. The XBox was NOT irrevalent when they started the port. It became irrevalent because the port took so long. They couldn't make it for the 360 because the 360 did not exist yet. Who's to say that a 360 port wouldn't have the same results. The only way to assure the game comes out in a timely manner for a console is to make the game for a console and that means comprises, such as turning OFP style of gameplay into CoD style of gameplay and consolation (no pun intended) to the controls. Of course CPU intensive (not graphic) operations will also need to be lessened. To compensate for the removal of these things, they would have turn up the WOW factor. This is what we mean when we say that game franchises have become "consolized" and this is never good for a PC gamer.

--

Ben

[maxqubit 1]

I don't get it benr. Imo the power a 360 houses is atm more than what 95% of the pc gamers have, it can't be an argument, and neither can the controller be an argument.

The Elite port took long, you seem to know the cause, i don't know the cause. I just see a sync (pun intended) between Elite and the BIS-Codemasters splitup (say you are in some kind of divorce process ... wouldn't that slow down development of a certain game ... and wouldn't you 'rush out' it with just enough specs to contractually fullfill your obligations ... Elite never stood a chance ... just my educational guess;)

And we don't need CoD styled game, we have CoD3 for that:)

[Journeyman 0]

Hmmm, this whole debate isn't far off my gripe about too much fantasy and magic in historical games that I made in this thread recently.

There is certainly an interesting parallel here where game developers appear to be spending too much time on dumb fancy stuff and not enough time on more mature and more realistic content. OK this is about clever tactical more immersive gamming vs. jump straight in and have a quick blast of over-hyped destructive pleasure! It all boils down to the same thing in the end though maxqubit and that is market forces!

I’m just glad that we have developers like BIS who are more concerned with their ambitious realistic content rather than a quick money-spinner aimed at the ever growing school kids market!

I must admit that I am not into console gaming I find a PC much more interactive and easier to play around with, esp.  things such as mission editors etc. But that is just a personal thing. I see no reason why such games as ArmA should not be ported to console if there is sufficient demand to make it a proposition for developers.

As with my gripe about too much myth & magic in historical games I think only time will tell. How about emailing various developers/publishers with your concerns? If the demand isn’t known about nothing will ever change!  

Edit: spelling of maxqubit!

[benreeper 0]

Right now an XBox 360 has more power than a weak pc but not the decent $600 mid-range gamer pc that I have. Believe me, I built this thing TWO years ago and all of my gamse on it looks as good as the games on an XBox 360. I can get alot more powerful PC now for that money. Also if you start a port for ArmA today and say it takes one and a half years, the $600 pc will be ALOT more powerful than an XBox 360.

The Codemasters split did not delay the port to the XBox of OFP: it was the development process that did it. BIS said that they learned alot from it, which made its way into ArmA.

The controller is a valid argument against and a compromise in gaming in a game as complex as OFP. You cannot just take the OFP controls and dump them to a console gamepad without ALOT of thought, testing and control cutbacks. It's just impossible. How can a 104 key controller plus a mouse be mapped to a 10 button 2 axis gamepad without changing the control scheme fundamentally.

I'm not saying consoles are bad, I'm saying that they are not good for pc games. I have an XBox to play sports games since they're not made for the pc as much anymore. Console gamers and pc gamers are different. Look at the Madden franchise. Many console gamers will run out and buy the game, on the first day of its release, for $50, in order to play a game that is almost exactly the same as the one they bought 12 months earlier for the same price. The pc gamer, in contrast, would still be playing the same game version for three years and be in the 25th year of their franchise. I once played so many seasons in High Heat Baseball that me and my son both retired and entered the Hall of Fame.

For pc gamers, flash is the icing but depth of gameplay is the cake. For many console developers, many of their games is nothing but chocolate frosting.

--Ben

[Adam Ferante 0]

Sure there are several thousand console gamers that like games like OFP but there are several million console gamers that do not.    That is where the money is and publishers want to sell to the most for the least, regardless of the type of game or quality of the game.  The is beared out by the types of games mostly purchased on consoles.

I never said BIS were money grabbers or whatever; this is why ArmA is a PC game  and not a console game.  They are making a game they would want to play and they can afford to do it because OFP sold more than a million copies.  Publishers don't make games (for the most part) they sell them and they want to make money (for the most part) on games not play them.

You're wrong about the porting to the XBox and the XBox being irrevelant.  The XBox was NOT irrevalent when they started the port.  It became irrevalent because the port took so long.  They couldn't make it for the 360 because the 360 did not exist yet.  Who's to say that a 360 port wouldn't have the same results.  The only way to assure the game comes out in a timely manner for a console is to make the game for a console and that means comprises, such as turning OFP style of gameplay into CoD style of gameplay and consolation (no pun intended) to the controls.  Of course CPU intensive (not graphic) operations will also need to be lessened.  To  compensate for the removal of these things, they would have turn up the WOW factor.  This is what we mean when we say that game franchises have become "consolized" and this is never good for a PC gamer.  

--

Ben

The xbox i was saying was irrelevent to ArmA port as the Xbox is a completely different system that works in a whole different way thefore you have to rewrite most of the game code, this is one of the reasons it took so long

The xbox 360 as a system is a much easier system to port to as it shares alot of the similarities as a pc gaming system - this was one of the concepts of the 360 from the off, you cant compare elite with this because of this, if you want a real world example, F.E.A.R. has been ported and updated in just over a year. Therefore any judgement your making is based on elietes performance, but you cant, completely different systems and circumstances.

I know that publishers dont make games but EA and Ubisoft have become so huge they have big money incentives and have often bought the developer companies which has had a huge impact on the way thier games are developed. But you knew that already.

The CPU intencity would be extremely unlikely to not be able to cope with its unique architechture, yet again I dont know what your basing this on.

[EiZei 0]

The xbox i was saying was irrelevent to ArmA port as the Xbox is a completely different system that works in a whole different way thefore you have to rewrite most of the game code, this is one of the reasons it took so long

Uh, never minding the fact that the original XBOX had a bog-standard pentium processor, a modified nvidia geforce 3 graphics chipset, standard PC hard drive and optical drive and it even was somehow using directx and stripped down windows 2000 as well? On the other hand the "easier" X360 has a custom triple core PowerPC processor.

It's no coincidence that the original XBOX has such a vibrant homebrew community.

[maxqubit 1]

The controller is a valid argument against and a compromise in gaming in a game as complex as OFP. You cannot just take the OFP controls and dump them to a console gamepad without ALOT of thought, testing and control cutbacks. It's just impossible. How can a 104 key controller plus a mouse be mapped to a 10 button 2 axis gamepad without changing the control scheme fundamentally.

If i want my squad to salute i want to say 'squad ... salute' and that would be it. No more backspace, 9, 5, 7 or whatever sequences. C'mon:)

Sometime in the future you'd look at a car (TrackIR anyone?) and say '4, getin that car as driver' .. and a serious dev like BIS would immediately see that the 'that car' is still redundant cause you were looking at the car already ... so viewing direction + '4, getin as driver' would suffice ... now THAT is the goal, only a lazy dev would stick to 104 keys + mouse pointing until 2030:)

[Alaskan_Viking 0]

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 know what you mean, the community is half the reason I liked Rainbow/Ghost recon more then Halo2.

In my experience, Most of the people you meet in Halo, are immature, unsupervised kids, who it's difficult to even have a polite conversation with, the people you meet while playing Rainbow six, or Ghost Recon on the other hand, are usually polite and helpful.

You can have intelligent conversations about history, politics, firearms, military vehicles, or the geopolitical situation in the middle east.

I still remember when I played Rainbow six, for the first time on XBOX live, I never played rainbow six on PC, so I had no idea what to do.

when I got into the lobby there was a huge list of weapons, That I recognized, and knew what calliber they were, and what basic features they had, but it was still a game that I have never played, so I asked the guys in the room:

"what is the best rifle for a new player?"

I ended up getting into the age old AKM vs M16 debate, in a video game lobby! I knew right then and there, that this was the kind of game for me!

Now the best I ever got from the CS, or Halo crowd, was "laser sword pwns!" and the most irritating "Deagle is teh b3st pistolz!11)

[Heatseeker 0]

Uh, never minding the fact that the original XBOX had a bog-standard pentium processor, a modified nvidia geforce 3 graphics chipset, standard PC hard drive and optical drive and it even was somehow using directx and stripped down windows 2000 as well? On the other hand the "easier" X360 has a custom triple core PowerPC processor.

It's no coincidence that the original XBOX has such a vibrant homebrew community.

Hey, you forgot the 64 MB of ram (BIS makes miracles or what) .

I dont understand this whole "debate" direction, you can play Halo and GRAW on the 360 (where they make sense) and you can play Arma where you can take full advantage of everything it can deliver (PC).

With a suitable interface (mouse/keyboard) and high resolution display, and with a editor that you can really use.

Cutscenes, scripts, voice acting and sound, campaign description, etc (Im not going into the addon scene).

Im not saying the game would be bad without creation tools and the editor (i loved playing and replaying OPF:R to death, it was pure magic) but why limit yourself with a half featured sim and a clumsy controler when you can have the whole deal? I presume you guys are more than casuals (since you bother to come here) so you should know how much more a PC can do with OPF and Arma and yet you choose a crippled version because of butterflies and bees?

Quote[/b] ]For the sake of argument let suppose ArmA would come (not dumbed down) only on 360 and NOT on pc.

Arma wouldnt really need an editor, scale would be compromised for graphics and the gameplay would be toned to fit the console interface (and target audience), perhaps Codemasters will release their OPF2 for the 360? .

What would i do? Instead of spending my €'s on a console i would stick with VBS... I could never live with a console arma version after the PC OPF:R experience.

[Adam Ferante 0]

Uh, never minding the fact that the original XBOX had a bog-standard pentium processor, a modified nvidia geforce 3 graphics chipset, standard PC hard drive and optical drive and it even was somehow using directx and stripped down windows 2000 as well? On the other hand the "easier" X360 has a custom triple core PowerPC processor.

It's no coincidence that the original XBOX has such a vibrant homebrew community.

Hey, you forgot the 64 MB of ram (BIS makes miracles or what) .

I dont understand this whole "debate" direction, you can play Halo and GRAW on the 360 (where they make sense) and you can play Arma where you can take full advantage of everything it can deliver (PC).

With a suitable interface (mouse/keyboard) and high resolution display, and with a editor that you can really use.

Cutscenes, scripts, voice acting and sound, campaign description, etc (Im not going into the addon scene).

Im not saying the game would be bad without creation tools and the editor (i loved playing and replaying OPF:R to death, it was pure magic) but why limit yourself with a half featured sim and a clumsy controler when you can have the whole deal? I presume you guys are more than casuals (since you bother to come here) so you should know how much more a PC can do with OPF and Arma and yet you choose a crippled version because of butterflies and bees?

Quote[/b] ]For the sake of argument let suppose ArmA would come (not dumbed down) only on 360 and NOT on pc.

Arma wouldnt really need an editor, scale would be compromised for graphics and the gameplay would be toned to fit the console interface (and target audience), perhaps Codemasters will release their OPF2 for the 360? .

What would i do? Instead of spending my €'s on a console i would stick with VBS... I could never live with a console arma version after the PC OPF:R experience.

There was a perfectly good editor on elite, it wasnt anywhere near as powerful as the PCs granted as it didnt have scripts etc but it doesnt mean you need it, im sure they could talor a perfectly powerful mission editor based on thier learnings, they could in theory put in the power to edit scripts as you can pick up a cheap usb keyboard for the Xbox360. Obviously I doubt that what would happen but then again i dont think it needs it, surely the 360 version could hijack the PC editing community or somthing along those lines, all depening on what BIS and its publisher want to do.

Scale and graphics would no way be toned down

gameplay and target audience is a matter of opinion of which none of us have any means of backing up I highly doubt that BIS would change the game in a negative way for a younger target audience - they have no track record of doing this so

What.Are.People.Basing.This.On

[maxqubit 1]

@Heatseeker.

Really, the only difference between a pc and a 360 is the controller vs keyboard. Alas, with a controller it is more difficult to type (a script for example)

Your arguments are just not valid, sorry. You don't 'want' ArmA on 360 because YOU think it can't work (and/or are afraid the Flashpoint universe will be dumbed down cause of it), but I think it can AND I DON'T WANT ANYTHING DUMBED DOWN ... now it is up to BIS and Publisher(s) to decide if they will invest some time and money in it.

Denying to even consider a 'port' is like saying your soccerteam only wants to play home matches ... why bother with 'away' matches ... we have a stadium, we have visitors, we have a referee, why bother to play somewhere else, let them play here.

Btw, i assure you that the resistance campaign is equally good on Xbox as it was on PC

And for your information 720p (dft res on 360)=1280x720 and the possible 1080p (in the works and on PS3)=1980x1020(something) ... hires can't be and argument

(and btw, VBS is not for sale in my 'question':)

(but i will try to stop with this 'discussion', the points are clear ... let's see what happens)

[maxqubit 1]

Scale and graphics would no way be toned down

gameplay and target audience is a matter of opinion of which none of us have any means of backing up I highly doubt that BIS would change the game in a negative way for a younger target audience - they have no track record of doing this so

What.Are.People.Basing.This.On

My thoughts exactly AF

[Tactical Jerky 0]

Quote[/b] ]How can a 104 key controller plus a mouse be mapped to a 10 button 2 axis gamepad without changing the control scheme fundamentally.

I'm not saying consoles are bad, I'm saying that they are not good for pc games.

Those statements are wrong and misleading. The 360 controller has 11 normall buttons, 2 analog sticks (2x 360 degree angle) that as well can be pushed in (+2=13), plus a d-pad (4 or 8 directions?).

First of all I'm not sure if OFP on pc uses so many more keys than the avarage pc shooter but if I play one I basically use a fraction of all the (103/104?) buttons found on a keyboard. Secondly with OFP:E they've already demonstrated that it's perfectly possible to do so. Also with a little bit of wise programming lot's is possible like one action button combined with one of the sticks can result in a menu with many options.

And more similar tricks can be used. Not always as ideal as a direct key but possible.

Quote[/b] ]I dont understand this whole "debate" direction, you can play Halo and GRAW on the 360 (where they make sense) and you can play Arma where you can take full advantage of everything it can deliver (PC).

That's fine you choose pc I console why is personal I could give you many reasons why I prefer console and vice versa could you, but that's unimportant. If it's possible and I don't see any reason it isn't than there's no reason we shouldn't enjoy ArmA.

[benreeper 0]

The gamepad is a compromise and the game HAS to be programmed in a certain way to make it useful.

If you do not see that PC games and console games are different types of platforms with different types of users, we'll just have to agree to disagree and move on.

--Ben

[maxqubit 1]

We disagree, ok.

The gamepad is designed to work with gameconsoles.

The keyboard however is an evolution of the typewriter, which was and still is used by secretaresses.

There is simply not arguing and/or disagreeing about that.

If the keyboard was made useful to play games, it has to be clear that the keyboard is the compromise ... a shallow replacement for holding a real gun and shouting real command.

It has 104 keys ... awesome!

[Journeyman 0]

We disagree, ok.

The gamepad is designed to work with gameconsoles.

The keyboard however is an evolution of the typewriter, which was and still is used by secretaresses.

There is simply not arguing and/or disagreeing about that.

If the keyboard was made useful to play games, it has to be clear that the keyboard is the compromise ... a shallow replacement for holding a real gun and shouting real command.

It has 104 keys ... awesome!

But you can install many different types of keyboard/game controllers/mice to a PC to suit your needs/preferences! With a console you’re stuck with what you have!  

[Tactical Jerky 0]

Quote[/b] ]The gamepad is a compromise and the game HAS to be programmed in a certain way to make it useful.

Yeah so? Sorry no offence but I don't understand your point.

They have to do what they have to do, afcourse they need to be creative to let it function properly but they've already demonstrated with OFP:E that it works so I don't see a problem.

Quote[/b] ]If you do not see that PC games and console games are different types of platforms with different types of users, we'll just have to agree to disagree and move on.

I can't help it that they only release arcade shooters, that has nothing to do with us being diverent. But by coming to this board and let them hear our voices we hope to make a change. Can I also remind you that you have arcade shooters on pc as well (they even started there). And the fact that we are discussing this in the first place already proves console gamers do like these kind of games.

[benreeper 0]

I'm talking statistics and not individuals when I profile the types of gamers. This is what the "beancounters" listen to when deciding which projects get developed, not our individual voices. Sure you have arcade games on PCs but they don't reap millions in profits like they do on the consoles. And really, the only game as realistic as OFP on consoles is OFP:E and took BIS nearly three years to program. That made it "dated" in the eyes of many gamers and how much did it sell? You want them to do that again with ArmA?

--Ben

[Uziyahu--IDF 0]

I've played the R6:Vegas demo on my 360 and it is clearly the rebirth of the R6 franchise. Iron sights, 3D optics, ability to pick up fallen weapons, silencers on/off, necessity of taking cover, solid A.I., tangos having conversations, snake cam.

OFP:E was released when the 360 was all the buzz. Launch a version of OFP on the 360 before it reaches retirement and so many will play it, just for the achievement points. And we all know that if someone actually gives any version of OFP a chance, they'll fall in love.

At first Chromehounds was criticized for its slow pace, but gamers slowly caught on that slow pace doesn't mean a crappy game.

We need ArmA on the 360.

[maxqubit 1]

And really, the only game as realistic as OFP on consoles is OFP:E and took BIS nearly three years to program. That made it "dated" in the eyes of many gamers and how much did it sell? You want them to do that again with ArmA?

--Ben

Nope, they 'should' go for a straight ArmA port and put in the controller scheme of OFP:E and the XBL interface (albeit with a 360 look) ... the 'should' NOT work on new/improvement things. They 'should' throw a 360 demo on XBL in/before Q2 2007 and release the game Q3 2007 (latest Q4 2007)

So basically they import ArmA pc code into the 360 dev machine (which is i presume ... a pc), slam in the OFPE stuff of controller and XBL ... start the compiler, get coffee, and hey presto you've got yourselves an ArmA/360

(Could do it myself in a long weekend ... uhmmm, no, i couldn't, just kidding ... but anyone gets my point ... just a straight port with as less hassle as possible)

...

And you know, it is a pity Placebo 'banned' this thread to OffTopic, cause the seriousness of the 'wish' imho deserves a place in the real ArmA forum:(

[Baff2 0]

I still belive there is a different gaming ethic between console and PC.

Consoles are a dedicated entertainment system. They can be found in the centre of the living room and are often the focal point of that room. (Along with the T.V.). Because of this, I find the games tend to be more accessable. Easier to use.

I believe a good watchphrase for console game design is "pick up and play".

Joe Bloggs comes over and he is in your living room also. He wants a go too.  One Joe Bloggs or another is always over so the ability for a complete noob to master the controls and nuances of the game quickly is a must. This is not the kind of system you can expect to play on your own uninterupted for hour after hour.

With PC gaming, the watchphrase "pick up and play" is substituted for "learning curve". PC gamers often don't want things that are mastered too quickly.

The platforms attract fundamentally different types of gamers. Has anyone ever made a flight sim for a console? The hardware can handle it. But I don't think it would sell.

Similarly Platformers and Beat Em Up's don't sell on PC.

There are different principles required for console games. Some of them cross over to PC, many do not.

P.S. for whoever said Console are in no way more limited by hardware than PC games, that's not completely true. A next gen console has a total of 512 RAM split between graphics and system.

The enviroments you deploy in will all be much smaller.

[Heatseeker 0]

Has anyone ever made a flight sim for a console?

http://overgfighters.us.ubi.com/

... , lol?

[Journeyman 0]

Has anyone ever made a flight sim for a console?

http://overgfighters.us.ubi.com/

... , lol?

Wow! LOL! I think you just reinforced Baff2s point! ... I must buy that flight sim I don't think!    

[maxqubit 1]

I give up, let me end with a quote by Placebo to be found somewhere on this forum

Quote[/b] ]To be honest after playing Elite and especially testing and playing the multiplayer aspects of Elite I really couldn't face going back to Opf ... And I started off believing that FPS' don't work on consoles, nice to be proved wrong occasionally

[Adam Ferante 0]

This has got to be one of the most irritating topics ive contributed in, People taking things out of context, ignoring facts and resorting to embellished opinion and prejudice without backing it up

IM a 360 player but used to be an avid PC player of tactical shooters, I have no prejudice and bias. PC is a great system but then so is the xbox 360, its designed to play games and its a great system to do it on and you PC people havnt raised a single strong point to say otherwise (you need 104 keys? do you shite)

when ofp/arma wasnt around you were the ones playing the battles fields and the call of duties the rainbow sixes, you had no choice for military hardcore shooters, you didnt think you needed one. then Ofp came along on which many of you thrived, it wasnt for everyone and tey stayed where they were

how can you expect an armed assault community when its in a platform where it doesnt exist - every console player that has GRAW, Rainbow six, Battlefield 2 is a potential Arma player and there are alot of those players.

And for god sake, for the second time, one key principle of the Xbox 360 concepts was that PC developers would find it much easier to port their games over, you cant compare a 5 year old game on a hugely different system without the marketing to a not yet released game being ported over to a new port friendly system.