official complaint to BIS

[skruis 180]

The fact however remains that there are serious issues with Armed Assault that should not be played down. If the product was created in such a short period of time, perhaps they should have held it longer before releasing it. If they have created this game in such a short span, then it's a great accomplishment but it's still not ready for mass consumption.

[low light 0]

I am perfectly willing to be patient with ArmA and let it progress as OFP did. With that said I would be lying if I didn't say that I expected ArmA to include every great add-on innovation from the OFP MOD community, married to better graphics and tighter physics engine. I think that ArmA will indeed one day include all of these things but I, along with a sizable amount of others, were expecting these things "out of the box" considering how long B.I. had to work on ArmA. Please don't think of my statements as derogatory; I am simply stating my opinion and I recognise an opinion for what it is.  

I must admit that I had similar expectaions, but I don't live, breathe, eat, ArmA, like some others on this forum so I'm not too upset. Paitence is a great thing to have, and it's still early days yet there is plenty of time to have our expectaions fulfilled. Personally, OFP didn't meet all my expectations till recently when the SLX mod was released and that combined with WGL has satisfied at least 75% of my OFP expectaions (that's 5 years on from release). I enjoyed playing the game and finding things that I hadn't expected at all during that time.

One thing people need to realise (and I know Deadmeat and Messiah have said this before)  is that ArmA's development is fairly new. I believe (I may be wrong) but ArmA didn't really start to become what it is now until earlier this year (based on the development screen shots) therefore this game hasn't had the longevity in development that people seem to think it has. I'm sure the engine has been developed over a number of years, but the game it self isn't that 'long in the teeth' in regard to the development, so to have it in the state it is now is very impressive, and I am very confident that this development process will continue. The game may not be perfect and there may be bugs causing problems with playabilty, but I do feel that the time it has had at the workbench has provided us with a fairly good, dare I say, 'beta' version of the game ( I know it's gone Gold).

People also need to realise that the game will continue to develop and that the game will only get better, BIS aren't exactly going to feed us with patches that will make the game worse (well I hope they don't), not on purpose anyway.  

The fact however remains that there are serious issues with Armed Assault that should not be played down.  If the product was created in such a short period of time, perhaps they should have held it longer before releasing it.  If they have created this game in such a short span, then it's a great accomplishment but it's still not ready for mass consumption.

True, problems shouldn't be 'played down'. They should be reported through the proper channels (see my signature) in a constructive way. Ineffective bickering isn't going to get anyone anywhere, other than to get ignored. If there is a problem, write down exactly what it is and how you got it and post it in the Bugs topic or the Wiki Bugs list. It will have more use there than here other than to stir up more bickering. Some one quoted that one should be 'part of the solution and not part of the problem' I completely agree.

The fact remains that the game has been released so why talk about IF's and BUT's when we can talk about the HERE and NOW. Find the issues and deal with them (or atleast report them to be dealt with by BIS). They are in it for the long run, they are NOT scam artists here today gone tomorrow, but, as the name suggests, developers, who will no doubt develop this game into the success that OFP had with it's development. Have faith and paitence, with time there will be fixes and no doubt nice little surprises. Potential is a great thing, cos you can always develop potential into greatness (a bit cheesy, but I hope you get what I mean), see ArmA as an investment who's shares are about to go up as more and more development adds to it's value, you'll be reaping the benefits of this one for many years, stick with it, it's a great game from a small developer who cares how their 'Baby' grows up! (right that's enough cheese from me! )

Edit: post updated

[skruis 180]

Yes, BIS will continue to improve AA as they did with OFP but I think the disappointment that most of us are experiencing is that we have a potentially fantastic product in hand but are experiencing problems that should definitely be resolved before a "gold" release. Like you've said, this is more of a "beta".

[Chris Death 0]

I must also say a few things now;

Just for testing my new GeForce 7950 in another environment

than ArmA, where it runs great i started OFP today.

Before ArmA i've been running OFP with 1024x768 / 1300m

viewdistance / Visibility around 7.5 or 8 / detail normal.

Today i changed to: 1900 x 1200 (not exactly sure now but

something in this area) / 3000m viewdistance / visibility full

detail high.

I then placed a few BAS rangers in dense woods on Nogova

to test my framerate.

Well, the framerate was very playable but that's not the

point - point is: it was looking terrible ugly.

Why?

Because half an hour before is was playing ArmA and ArmA

looks terrible good compared to OFP.

People complaining about being disapointed by ArmA seem

having forgotten how OFP was looking.

The units were so stupid looking now after having seen those

ArmA units and having played with them - i couldn't find

anything good looking anymore in OFP.

And i don't even use ArmA in very high settings - just high

or normal with a viewdistance of 900 meters (i don't need

more since it was a normal viewdistance for ofp too in dense

missions). I'm using AA on high - AF on very high - detail

level is very high.

So ppl start really thinking before posting about that ArmA

is a step back - it simply isn't - and if you keep saying it than

it's only for being in the meaning that you must say something

since others also do.

I don't wanna say there are no bugs or so but this has been

said also a lot of times - they gonna get fixed sooner or later.

Stop trying to find what you don't like on the game you bought - move out and find what you love.

This is same like the half empty and the half full glass - you

can see it like you interpret it - but if you keep saying something is bad it will stay bad - no matter what´s gonna

be changed.

A lot of bugs being mentioned (not editor bugs but performance or lods) disappear once you are using the

right hardware - Lee Harvey Oswald was experimenting

with a lot of different hardware and came to the conclusion

that this is two different games depending on wether

the hardware is good enough or not.

~S~ CD

[DUX0726 0]

Well, Deadmeat, with all due respect--and you defiantly have mine, I've enjoyed your work for many years--whether B.I. only began working on this version of ArmA one year ago or not is a bit irrelevant to my expectations. The coding for the things that this community has come to expect was already created. It's was just a matter of “cut and paste†for B.I. to implement them so far as I know. (If I’m wrong about that then that’s fine but it still doesn’t change the reasons that I initially felt let-down by ArmA.) But besides that, B.I.'s time management is not really of concern to me as a consumer. I have waited for 5 years for a sequel to OFP , and as such I was expecting a bit more than I received. What B.I. did during those 5 years is irrelevant to me; all I know is that I've waited 5 years, and that is an amount of time that is sufficient to create a new video game. I think that is what is at the root of a lot of people’s frustrations, right or wrong. We are not employees of B.I. and as such we are not required to have any “understanding†for their management decisions. We are customers however, and the customer is always right if you want to keep your business successful.

Now, having said all of that, I would like to reiterate that I am not so disappointed that I plan on ditching B.I. products or trashing ArmA to other people on the street. I am simply voicing my concerns in the proper forum thread, and I have great hope for the future of ArmA. I just wanted to shed--perhaps--a little bit of light on this subject for those of you who can not understand why some of us were disappointed with the initial offering of ArmA. No need to become vexed with peoples take on the subject for there is a reason for everything, and so long as we all respect each others reasons and apply patience to the games growth process, then everything is going to turn out fine; and this is really just a “blowing off steam†thread, nothing more. I respect B.I.'s willingness to allow such a healthy thread. It shows confidence and benevolence towards it's loyal customers. In the end that type of attitude by B.I. will only streangthn this community, as it already has for many years previous to ArmA.

[Guggy 0]

I must also say a few things now;

Just for testing my new GeForce 7950 in another environment

than ArmA, where it runs great i started OFP today.

Before ArmA i've been running OFP with 1024x768 / 1300m

viewdistance / Visibility around 7.5 or 8 / detail normal.

Today i changed to: 1900 x 1200 (not exactly sure now but

something in this area) / 3000m viewdistance / visibility full

detail high.

I then placed a few BAS rangers in dense woods on Nogova

to test my framerate.

Well, the framerate was very playable but that's not the

point - point is: it was looking terrible ugly.

Why?

Because half an hour before is was playing ArmA and ArmA

looks terrible good compared to OFP.

People complaining about being disapointed by ArmA seem

having forgotten how OFP was looking.

The units were so stupid looking now after having seen those

ArmA units and having played with them - i couldn't find

anything good looking anymore in OFP.

And i don't even use ArmA in very high settings - just high

or normal with a viewdistance of 900 meters (i don't need

more since it was a normal viewdistance for ofp too in dense

missions). I'm using AA on high - AF on very high - detail

level is very high.

So ppl start really thinking before posting about that ArmA

is a step back - it simply isn't - and if you keep saying it than

it's only for being in the meaning that you must say something

since others also do.

I don't wanna say there are no bugs or so but this has been

said also a lot of times - they gonna get fixed sooner or later.

Stop trying to find what you don't like on the game you bought - move out and find what you love.

This is same like the half empty and the half full glass - you

can see it like you interpret it - but if you keep saying something is bad it will stay bad - no matter what´s gonna

be changed.

A lot of bugs being mentioned (not editor bugs but performance or lods) disappear once you are using the

right hardware - Lee Harvey Oswald was experimenting

with a lot of different hardware and came to the conclusion

that this is two different games depending on wether

the hardware is good enough or not.

~S~ CD

Ah crap, so a 7950 is no good then? I'm moving up from a 6100 (onboard, 128 megs). I'm hoping to be able to play with 700 view distance and low visuals and maybe get 30+ fps.

[Chris Death 0]

Quote[/b] ]Ah crap, so a 7950 is no good then?

Sorry but i didn't say that - you must have understood

that part wrong where i said:

Quote[/b] ]Just for testing my new GeForce 7950 in another environment

than ArmA, where it runs great

My lowest framerate is 28 (looking with binocs into

a bush or tree from very close)

~S~ CD

[dob 0]

I agree Chris Death,

me i play since 2 week whith my laptop M1710 from DELL whith 2GO mem and 7900 GO GTX 512mo,

and i not use all at high in seting, but 1500m view distance and lot of pleasure;

thank BIS !

to be continued

[Guggy 0]

Crap, I did indeed read wrong! My mistake

I personally agree with those who say the game should be given time to have its quirks worked out. My main concern is with the Campaign's mission triggers

[Stealth3 0]

ARMA and OFP are about gameplay, not graphics. If people want graphics, they go and play UT2K7

[TrunkzJr 0]

Yes, BIS will continue to improve AA as they did with OFP but I think the disappointment that most of us are experiencing is that we have a potentially fantastic product in hand but are experiencing problems that should definitely be resolved before a "gold" release. Like you've said, this is more of a "beta".

Its better that its been released now [even if you see it as a beta]. We as the comminity will be able to find WAY more many bugs in the game MUCH MUCH faster then they would, thus they'll be able to fix them faster and have a more bug free game in a faster amount of time. I'm sure they'll release another patch soon once they got a good amount fixed, no point releasing a patch after they fix each bug

[dm 9]

ARMA and OFP are about gameplay, not graphics. If people want graphics, they go and play UT2K7

So why are all your examples of "superior" game engines been mainly about graphics then?

Another thing, odd as it is, surely the fact ArmA suffers from the same bugs is proof that the system behind it is fundamentally the same. Its not some radically new thing which totally destroys the gameplay we all know and love. Yes it would be nice to have all these aincient issues addressed, but at least we know we're still working on a similar playing field, rather than a radically new one with new rules and whatnot.

@low light - agreed, nice points. All software is constantly evolving, and BI have a good reputation of listening to their fans in order to fix things.

@Chris Death - very valid points. IMHO ArmA is a beautiful piece of art (at least gfx wise). The terrain is picturesque, and while some of the content is a bit lacking what we do have can look like a photo in the right conditions. Considering the scale, thats bloody impressive.

@DUX0726 - first off thanks, secondly I agree. I think it would have been beneficial for the release to have been held back, but what has happened has happened and we cant change it. The "early" release certainly has, however, given BI a lot of feedback on how/where to improve the product. Yes I feel that the beta testers SHOULD have done this, but a wider audience can test with a much wider range of hardware than a handful of testers ever could.

[Stealth3 0]

I never said that ARMA is superior to OFP. In fact, I believe its inferior.

[dm 9]

Blah blah

Way to totally ignore the entire point of both of my posts. Seriously, good work on that one

[Soldat32 0]

Being an oldschool gamer here for me it was always gameplay above all else!!!!! DAmn these days if kids put graphics first and everything else second thats all you hear on most game sites when it comes to whining mainly.Who they freck gives a damn if the game has the latest graphic technology just give me the damn gameplay and fun factor please.

[craigsa 0]

Soldat - i agree 100%. Screw the graphics. Gameplay is the most important and graphics should come at least 3rd or 4th in the line.

[whisper 0]

And, for me at least, gameplay-wise, ArmA >>> OFP

It's called JiP. And changed everything

It's called terrain streaming. And it's awesome

It's called IA improvement (Yes, I said it!. Stop hogging your CPU with ultra high graphic settings, if you find gameplay>graphics, and you'll see a very good AI behavior, things I've never seen in OFP.

So yes, undoubtfully ArmA is riddled with bugs, some of them really annoying (MP weapon discharging themselves, crashes, flightmodels...) and things MUST be corrected by BI.

But ArmA brings much to the table compared to OFP. Way enough to be more than worth it.

[DodgyGeeza 0]

And, for me at least, gameplay-wise, ArmA >>> OFP

It's called JiP. And changed everything

It's called terrain streaming. And it's awesome

It's called IA improvement (Yes, I said it!. Stop hogging your CPU with ultra high graphic settings, if you find gameplay>graphics, and you'll see a very good AI behavior, things I've never seen in OFP.

So yes, undoubtfully ArmA is riddled with bugs, some of them really annoying (MP weapon discharging themselves, crashes, flightmodels...) and things MUST be corrected by BI.

But ArmA brings much to the table compared to OFP. Way enough to be more than worth it.

Like what?

[whisper 0]

Like what I listed, perhaps?

[Stealth3 0]

Blah blah

Way to totally ignore the entire point of both of my posts. Seriously, good work on that one

Half your post wasn't addressed to me, and the other half didn't have much to say with anything I said. And not to mention at all, you came up with something false about what I said.

For those of you who say that ARMA AI is better (which is not), go play the retaliation campaign for OFP, and see how the AI should be.

JIP is useless if only few people play. Right now, only about 100 people are playing online. Which is pretty poor, even for being released in a few countries.

And didn't OFP had terrain streaming?

And here's why ARMA isn't better than OFP out of the box.

Its called the campaign length and the campaign quality.

In quality, its a 2 out of 10 compared to Cold War Crisis.

[whisper 0]

Blah blah

Way to totally ignore the entire point of both of my posts. Seriously, good work on that one

Half your post wasn't addressed to me, and the other half didn't have much to say with anything I said. And not to mention at all, you came up with something false about what I said.

For those of you who say that ARMA AI is better (which is not), go play the retaliation campaign for OFP, and see how the AI should be.

JIP is useless if only few people play. Right now, only about 100 people are playing online. Which is pretty poor, even for being released in a few countries.

And didn't OFP had terrain streaming?

And here's why ARMA isn't better than OFP out of the box.

Its called the campaign length and the campaign quality.

In quality, its a 2 out of 10 compared to Cold War Crisis.

Compare AI out of the box. ArmA one is better. This is what I saw.

JiP is all but useless. I'm really sorry I don't, unlike you apparently, have time to spare enough to have to schedule all my online gaming in advance, or stare for hours a dull lobby waiting for a mission to finish.

Now I can browse server, see what fits my wish, connect, play, without waiting.

To be short, I now can play ArmA online, I couldn't play OFP online. If that is not an improvement, I don't know what it is.

No, OFP didn't have terrain streaming. + hard limit on island size, which disapeared.

But keep discarding improvements only to fit your agenda, that makes for a very healthy discussion

[Stealth3 0]

Because I don't see how AI has been improved, so please explain. There are a lot of videos out there showing the horrible AI. Why not make one to show how great the AI is then?

About, JIP, I doubt you'll be saying that when most of the servers are empty and there are only a few people to play with at any given time.

Larger islands are sure an improvement, but doesn't improve the quality of gameplay. What exactly can you play on it that you couldn't in regular OFP islands?

[SFG 1]

Well one thing I saw improved in AI... I was shooting at a group of civilians and one ran away and hid behind a bush.

[whisper 0]

Because I don't see how AI has been improved, so please explain. There are a lot of videos out there showing the horrible AI. Why not make one to show how great the AI is then?

About, JIP, I doubt you'll be saying that when most of the servers are empty and there are only a few people to play with at any given time.

Larger islands are sure an improvement, but doesn't improve the quality of gameplay. What exactly can you play on it that you couldn't in regular OFP islands?

And you'll see the same stupid behavior by OFP AI. Woohoo.

What OFP AI, out of the box, does not do, is moving in group like they do in ArmA, act in building on their own like they do in ArmA, know proper use of cover like they do in ArmA (at last the "find cover" command is usefull), go send scouts and people investigating a shooting like they do in ArmA, and that's only the few I've seen so far.

OTOH, yes, AI can sometimes still be stuck stupidely in some places, be slow to react, or spot you strangely (when you blow a satchel charge for example), EXACTLY like they did in OFP.

Now, how is that not an improvement, what did OFP that ArmA does not in AI department?

Everything is not perfect, there are bugs, there are unfinished and stupid things, that's a given. But ArmA still brings more than OFP in the AI department.

Servers : funny, in the last few days I played, I've been in the biggest game I've ever done with BI Engines, with more players than I was dreaming of when playing OFP. And game is released in very few countries, and still riddle with unpatched bugs.

But you must be right, it's already dead. LOL?

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]For those of you who say that ARMA AI is better (which is not), go play the retaliation campaign for OFP, and see how the AI should be.

Most of Retaliation AI extensions were scripted heavily and only useable in mission-defined scenarios. I have had a deep look into it when it was released as I was impressed by the high qualty level.

There were no universal AI improvements though. Just situation-related scripted events.

If you want to talk about AI improvements in OFP that were universally working, list Grouplink, Kriegerdaemons AI, but not Retaliation. They all have one thing in common: Higher CPU load.

You can´t transport such to Arma 1:1 as Arma supports a much more higher unitcount than OFP which would put so much more load on the CPU that it simply won´t work universally.

Take your time and check what you´re talking about before comparing mermaids to elephants.