The biggest problem with ArmA

[poitings 0]

I was thinking about what it was exactly about ArmA that's preventing me from totally loving and getting fully into and imersed with it.

I played OFP to death and really liked it. I Also on principle really like ArmA and i don't mind if the graphics are at the level of 'Crysis' or stay at the OpFlash level as long as the game play is sound.

Here's the problem though, and it was the same with OFP.

Armed Assault, like OpFlash, is essentially an RTS game that allows you to get some FPS action going.

This particular post is not about the difference between FPS's such as CS, UT, GR or OFP/ArmA. So don't say "oh those other games are arcady/run and gun. I know what they are but whether they are arcady like Unreal Tournament and CS or serious tac shooters like R6 and Ghost Recon they all have one thing in common and that is as an FPS game they translate the instant of your actions into what happens in the game.

Again, it's not about what 'type' of FPS they are, it's about how whatever you cause to happen, happens 'instantly' on the screen in that game world. This is what allows 'imersion'.

I click the left mouse button and i've fired before i've even released the click. I press 'left' and i'm moving left instantly. I press the key for crouch or prone and i'm doing it almost as soon as i thought of it. Because of my real world physical action translates to instantanious in-game action then in my mind i am 'in the game'.

The problem with OFP and now AA is that there is this slight feeling of rather than you doing those actions . . what you are really doing is transmitting a command to your on screen soldier and he is doing them. The delay is very miniscule yes, but there is that vital time delay that you feel. Maybe it's just a millisecond more than other games but it's there and it's not a 'system' problem either (play on 640 480 with all graphics set to lowwww and it's the same) it's a game design problem.

In an RTS you don't actually do anything, you tell the things you control to do stuff and they do it and you get to watch. That's why 'command and conquer' is the perfect name for an RTS.

In OFP and AA, although the delay is small enough that you cant really messure it, there is this thin film of transmission time where your brain registers that you just pressed the button/key for an action and now you are waiting for that to be translated in an on screen action. The conscious mind can't messure these things but the unconscious can. I mean we couldnt mesure five 25ths of a second but if a film was playing at 20fps instead of 25fps we would notice it.

A true FPS has to be so blindingly fast in real world action to on screen action that it seems instant to the unconscious mind. Most FPS games are. ArmA though is very fast but just lacks that extra bit of instantness and therefore takes you out of the game a bit and you feel like you are sending a command and waiting for it to be enacted. Sure it's a matter of hundreths of a second but that's the different between 'percieved instantness' and 'percieved delay'.

I don't know if it's because the game is drawing a massive island loads of times a second before then registering your button/key press and sending it on to your character but for some reason the two BIS games have that sluggishness to react.

Most FPS games i've played don't have it (the awful 'Soldner' had it) even sucky games such as BF2, Joint Ops and even Delta Force didn't have that miniscule but telling delay.

This is why I think i can only enjoy OFP and ArmA as an RTS, commanding and stuff and not really as in imersive FPS game which is a shame cause the landscape and bushes etc are totally idea for the type of Ghost Recon sneaking around in the woods game i love.

Lastly, dont let this become a debate about system problems cause that ain't it. Keep on topic and please discuss if you agree that there is that feeling of a barrier of time/delay seperating your mind from feeling as if you are the character in the game and his view/experiences are yours while you play. Also discuss if you think that is just bad game engine or on purpose etc.

He he and don't flam me cause i love BIS and OFP/AA. I'm getting so into detail cause i want it to be a better game.

[Heatseeker 0]

This is the biggest problem with Arma? The only delays i get with Arma is because my current comp sucks.. i never noticed any input delay in OPF compared to other FPS's like GR. The gameplay is slower but thats it.

If i left click OPF shoots, if i hit R it reloads, i really dont know what you mean man.. ?

[ebud 18]

That "sluggishness" is the time it takes to actually perform that action in RL. You want to go prone it takes a bit of time. You get up it takes time. That disconnected feeling is not an engine flaw, but RL movement timing translated into the animations. Put in a 50lb pack, 20lbs or so of extra gear, a weapon, etc and perform those in-game movements and see how quick you are.

[Serclaes 0]

That "sluggishness" is the time it takes to actually perform that action in RL. You want to go prone it takes a bit of time. You get up it takes time. That disconnected feeling is not an engine flaw, but RL movement timing translated into the animations. Put in a 50lb pack, 20lbs or so of extra gear, a weapon, etc and perform those in-game movements and see how quick you are.

seconded

[HellToupee 0]

difference is real life u dont move with a keyboard, u make take time to do something but there is no delay in which u start doing it in rl, in games its kinda clumbsy

[poitings 0]

I bet if you check the time it takes to get up to standing from prone in Ghost Recon and AA Ghost Recon is actually slower.

In AA it just feels slower.

[wamingo 1]

The sluggishness is of course also partly due to low fps. I bet no one plays BF2142 at 15fps and enjoys it much.

The truth is that ofp/arma has a huge load on them. It may well be BIS's greatest dilemma. They have this massive playing field and still is forced to have all these graphical enhancements or otherwise people won't give it a chance. If it looks good, it flies good.

Ofp/arma, to many, is a simulation, not a shooter, nor an rts.

If we asked BIS they would probably weigh on the simulator too.

Simulation is all about looking real and feeling real - physics; mass, size, velocity, acceleration, etc. And all of these promptly disallows instantaneous in any reality.

Reality makes for good gaming if some thought is put into it and a few twists of fun, but, granted, it does also take a different kind of mind to enjoy it.

[NeMeSiS 11]

I only experienced a delay (in aiming) with vsync on and flip queue size(Ati)/render frames ahead(nVidia) to >0. When i turned it off and set it to 0 the delay in aiming was gone, ok its not as smooth as CSS/*whatever FPS*, but those are way too smooth to feel natural anyway, i think that ArmA got it just right (with the above settings)

EDIT: A thing that helps with the crouch movement stuff..

Image you are crouching, not that you just pressed a button and waiting until you are in crouching position. Play like you are there, not like you are controlling someone else.

[Czechm8 0]

That "sluggishness" is the time it takes to actually perform that action in RL. You want to go prone it takes a bit of time. You get up it takes time. That disconnected feeling is not an engine flaw, but RL movement timing translated into the animations. Put in a 50lb pack, 20lbs or so of extra gear, a weapon, etc and perform those in-game movements and see how quick you are.

true. It's great and immersive.

[raedor 8]

There already is a thread about ArmA. Search before posting. Thanks.