official complaint to BIS

[Zombie_Mod 0]

Well dunno about you but I for one am looking forward to the CWC stuff. I'd quite like it if the Everon islands etc were brought up to date with swaying trees and PROPER grass etc

[DodgyGeeza 0]

I remember when Operation Flashpoint first arrived. It was buggy as hell but i still played the hell out of it.

Armed Assault is buggy as hell, but its not fun to play in the slightest.

(I'm entitled to my opinion, i don't care about your silly (and pathetic) loyalties to a company who has your/my money)

[ade_mcc 0]

Quote[/b] ]I'm entitled to my opinion, i don't care about your silly (and pathetic) loyalties to a company who has your/my money

DodgyGeezer, surley it was your loyalty to the company that made you spend money on a game before playing a demo and presumably reading any reviews??

No-one forced you to buy ArmA now did they.

[barroom hero 0]

nearly 4 years to make, and this many bugs, I think I'll re download Americas Army or wait for crysis which has been held back so that amends can be made so its playable on none DX10 systems.

I bet codemasters are laughing their backsides off.

[dm 9]

nearly 4 years to make...

To quote myself from another thread:

Wrong, wrong and wrong again.

Why does everyone automaticlly assume that ArmA development started the second BI was finished with OFP:R.

ArmA as we know it only really came into existance in late 2005, infact I'm more inclined to suggest that in its current state it probably didnt come into existance until early 2006.

Look at it like this: in mid 2005 (at E3 or whatever expo it was) BI announced ArmA. Look at the screenshots of ArmA back then, it was the OFP:E engine brought back to PC. Look at ArmA now, it's totally different and looks a bit like Game2 was starting to look like ~10 months ago. What can we deduce from this? We can deduce this: ArmA as it was when it was announced, is NOT the same ArmA as we have now. Therefore, ArmA we have now is <1 year old. Not bad when you consider the dev time for most other games (excluding the bullshit movie tie ins and all that other crap).

...

[4 IN 1 0]

nearly 4 years to make, and this many bugs, I think I'll re download Americas Army or wait for crysis which has been held back so that amends can be made so its playable on none DX10 systems.  

I bet codemasters are laughing their backsides off.

again it have been under actural developement for just under 2 years, so this "4 years to make" b#llcrap didnt stand, well fact is that there isnt much game developer around so we couldnt really know how this thing works,

my throught is: i am happy that this engine is finally out, within my lifetime, keep on the way BIS, i will wait for your patches

@Deadmeat

well i think we could save our breath and stop answering these bullcr@p, let them make their own "patches" to "fix" all those bugs, if they acturally know how to..........

[Stealth3 0]

The community fixing even minor bugs won't work well at all.

Why?

The simple reason is that whatever the community releases will be release as mods and not patches. So people that don't downlod the mods won't benefit from it.

For example, ECP might fix a lot of things and add to the game, but not everybody has ECP.

If the work will be implemented as patches, it won't work because the people that did the work will feel as if they were taken advantage of (doing it for free).

And above all, it won't look professional for any company to have the communty fix their errors.

I agree the the moding tools should be released ASAP, but not for the reason of fixing bugs. People should mod for enjoyment, not to fix errors.

And for the people saying : "Oh, it was in development for only 2 years."

Even two years, is a pretty long time. The concept was there people, they didn't have to work on it. The engine is an improvement, not completely new. Even the physics engine is an improvement of the OFP physics engine.

This is nothing like HL2 where everything as done from scratch.

Resistance took less time to make, and in my opinion it delivered more that ARMA. At least it had a very solid campaign to it, and was very stable.

[Messiah 2]

of course resistance was stable... it was an addon, not a new game

[4 IN 1 0]

The community fixing even minor bugs won't work well at all.

Why?

The simple reason is that whatever the community releases will be release as mods and not patches.  So people that don't downlod the mods won't benefit from it.

For example, ECP might fix a lot of things and add to the game, but not everybody has ECP.

If the work will be implemented as patches, it won't work because the people that did the work will feel as if they were taken advantage of (doing it for free).

And above all, it won't look professional for any company to have the communty fix their errors.    

I agree the the moding tools should be released ASAP, but not for the reason of fixing bugs.  People should mod for enjoyment, not to fix errors.  

And for the people saying : "Oh, it was in development for only 2 years."

Even two years, is a pretty long time.  The concept was there people, they didn't have to work on it.  The engine is an improvement, not completely new.  Even the physics engine is an improvement of the OFP physics engine.  

This is nothing like HL2 where everything as done from scratch.

Resistance took less time to make, and in my opinion it delivered more that ARMA.  At least it had a very solid campaign to it, and was very stable.

bugs in most time are engine code related, so we might get around those bugs, but we might never fixed without dig into the code itself,

oh and if you really know how a game is being develope(or how to), how about making one yourself, no SDK/engine "out of the box" being used

(take notice what arma is not the old OFP engine anymore after they rewrite it)

[FatNinjaKid 0]

i just got ArmA today and I am truly disappointed. I don't have to explain why, i guess.

[dr_chris 10]

There are good points, there are bad points. Get real, for fook's sakes, this is just the way life is.

There are points which I hope BIS will sort out, and I am sure they will within time. I prefer the fact that they release it at this stage and see what the COMMUNITY wants to be changed, instead of keeping it in development longer and just changing it to what THEY want and then not touching it.

Of course everyone's opinion should count, but I think it's a bit sad that people come on and say "OMG THIS IZ LIK WELL NUB" instead of giving productive ways that it can be resolved. I don't believe for a minute that there are not bits of the game that each person likes, and the good points should also be highlighted so that BIS know where their strong points lie so that they can use them to correct the weak points.

[Stealth3 0]

Quote[/b] ]"OMG THIS IZ LIK WELL NUB"

Who said that? Stop exagerating things.

And sure, there are things that I enjoy a lot. But they are insignificant compare to the things I dislike.

[dr_chris 10]

I apologise if my exaggerations were more than your high standards are willing to accept.

I was using it to emphasise the fact that nothing productive comes out of entirely negative feedback.

[Monkey Lib Front 10]

Campaign as a whole was pretty dissapointing tbh and compared to the original CwC was around my level of expertise in comparison. What bugs me about it is that it just seems rushed and no thought or storyline was ever really put into it. It dissapoints me on another level as the SP part of OFP/Res was the only sp campaings i really played alot with the addition of a select 2 or 3 others because sp missions of quality are far and few between so that means when we have FFUR for Arma i doubt i'll play through the campaign again

[desertfox 2]

To everyone posting more than once about 'just how bad arma is'

What's the point in going on about how bad the game is.

Sorry .. had to be said lol

[Sc@tterbrain 0]

Look at it like this: in mid 2005 (at E3 or whatever expo it was) BI announced ArmA. Look at the screenshots of ArmA back then, it was the OFP:E engine brought back to PC. Look at ArmA now, it's totally different and looks a bit like Game2 was starting to look like ~10 months ago. What can we deduce from this? We can deduce this: ArmA as it was when it was announced, is NOT the same ArmA as we have now. Therefore, ArmA we have now is <1 year old. Not bad when you consider the dev time for most other games (excluding the bullshit movie tie ins and all that other crap).

...

Ok I guess i can buy that argument. The game is not crappy or a sloppy job. But by your logic it was simply released unfinished, or at least below a standard many expect.

Further, I don't think that standard is set to high. It will however separate those that want instant satisfaction and those that are willing to contribute to making ArmedA the game they want it to be.

One group will whine and fade away, only to return when things are improved. The other group accepts the reality of the situation and will do something about it.

[Messiah 2]

Possibly one of the most sensible and brilliantly worded things I've read on these forums for a long time, I applaud you.

Quote[/b] ]But by your logic it was simply released unfinished, or at least below a standard many expect.

I think very few could argue this point, even the die hard fans

[Stealth3 0]

You can still argue that it was finish and that the standard is ok. You can use the ARMA poll as evidence that about 60% of the people playing it are happy with it. Its a small majority, but its a majority.

You can even go redstorm and say the game is flawless

The debate is limitless.

[dr_chris 10]

Further, I don't think that standard is set to high. It will however separate those that want instant satisfaction and those that are willing to contribute to making ArmedA the game they want it to be.

One group will whine and fade away, only to return when things are improved. The other group accepts the reality of the situation and will do something about it.

Amen. Very well said indeed.

[low light 0]

Ok I guess i can buy that argument. The game is not crappy or a sloppy job. But by your logic it was simply released unfinished, or at least below a standard many expect.

Further, I don't think that standard is set to high. It will however separate those that want instant satisfaction and those that are willing to contribute to making ArmedA the game they want it to be.

One group will whine and fade away, only to return when things are improved. The other group accepts the reality of the situation and will do something about it.

Very well written. I agree with you totally. There is a real need for people to give this game a chance to prove itself. There are flaws being identified, but the more flaws that are reported through the proper channels the better chance this game can be Patched up so that those expectations you were talking about can actually be met...though trying to satisfy everyones sometimes inflated expectations will no doubt prove impossible!

to the On-Demand culture!

[Marines 0]

I can understand some of these complaints.

Shoddy preformance on high end computers (like myself), severe bugs that drastically affect gameplay, and minor bugs that remain an annoyance are all valid. But these posts about the lack of playable units, features, mechanical pyhsics etc etc etc, are a complete bore and waste of time. Let's all focus on the core issues of the game at present, and avoid what should have been there, what's not there, what wasn't implemented, and or what would have made ArmA the greatest game of all time.

There is certainly a lot of bitching going on. Some of it I agree with, most of it I do not.

[DieAngel 0]

for a game released too soon, i personally see that MOST of the new features ArmA could offer are kept for virtual battle space 2.

Not exactly nice from BIS...

[Marines 0]

for a game released too soon, i personally see that MOST of the new features ArmA could offer are kept for virtual battle space 2.

Not exactly nice from BIS...

Oh I hear ya.

[Sc@tterbrain 0]

for a game released too soon, i personally see that MOST of the new features ArmA could offer are kept for virtual battle space 2.

Not exactly nice from BIS...

Finnaly an original gripe! For pages now it's been the same ole whining. That's kind of why I did't attempt to repeat any of them in my post. I'm just as whiney as many, but no need to be repedative.

Back to my point. Dieangel can you please elaborate on what you mean. What are we being deprived of?

[DieAngel 0]

check the vbs2 feature page:

http://vbs2.com/site/features.html

-Destructible buildings (prolly something different than the current "fall of the world trade center")

-Improved personal inventory system

-Real Time Mission Editor (there is a video on youtube, its actually something we would benefit from)

-3D Mission Editor

-Modifiable agent AI

-Improved simulation of armored weapon platforms

it isn't because we are gamers that we are not interested in these features.