An open letter to the ArmA community.

[Scrub 0]

Cup half full, cup half empty, or cup almost dry with a hole in the bottom.  That's my stereotypical view of posters attitudes here.

Let me pose a question, feel free to add your own answers:

How can so many have so much fun with a game that others even can claim to be broken?

(in my idea of order by occurance)

-System/configuration problems. (call it high hopes, or misunderstanding of what ArmA actually does to run the game)

-Nitpicky players, or unwilling to leave a comfort zone for new play style.

-Actual bugs.  Unoptimized/broken code (that will be fixed.. I've only run into 2 or 3 issues that affected gameplay only 1 server side was a game breaker)

-Personal tastes and desires for content/features.  BIS has already said there are features open in the engine that modders will enjoy. They just did not have time to implement.  So hang on to your hats when the tools come out.

Please confirm or deny or add to all you want.

Not at all meaning to offend, but there are many people that compare this to other games, or think that it should run no lower than 30 fps with latest tech on full detail.  For those people I ask, 'Show me that game where you can see enemy companies maneuvering to envelop you at 6km out - as you tell your mechanized company how to defend.'  That is, where is this game that allows for hundereds of combined arms AI and player units to individually hunt you down in such a large world?

Much less do it online?

Even much less than that, on your own server?

With fully moddable engine?

Really. I think many don't know the (unpolished) gem they have in ArmA.

*end rant*

[kroky 1]

@Paco

I agree with you that BIS used (or misused) community members (gamers) for beta testing purpose.

But I also agree that ArmA is a raw unpolished diamond.

Please people don't forget that the price you paid for this game is not only for the software you already have installed on your pc, but you also paid for future updates/patches.

Since 1.02 patch the game became better. I'm played it on 1.00 on 1.01 and now on 1.02. So BIS already proved the will to fix the game. Based on this I am confident they will work on it further and improve it more.

Then mods will bring it to much higher level, like they did with OFP.

[dm 9]

Sigh...

What BI have done in their advertising and PR campaign is no different to what any other company does when selling their games. Infact BI uses purely ingame footage for their PR, unlike some games which use FMV for their advertising...

As for

Quote[/b] ]The hype before this game was released went back years in advance. BIS spent years, it appears, making the game. Plenty of time to do it’s work. One would think after years of development

I'll repeat myself for the billionth time..

Quote[/b] ]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).

...

That's wrong.

ArmA got into development in early 2005.

It was presented at E3 2005 which was in May.

Read the info again Espectro...

Yes, work on "ArmA" started somewhen in 2005. But, my point is, ArmA did not start to look like the product we have now until late 2005. With a graphics change that drastic it suggests re-writes of large portions of code, and the replacement of nearly all content.

So my statement of "ArmA as we know it today didn't come into existance until late 2005" is correct.

If you want to argue about the legacy code from OFP then one could argue that work on ArmA started in 1997, but thats just not right now, is it.

I'd also have to weigh in with my distaste at the new moderation style, but I've already vented my thoughts about that in the ask a mod thread...

[soul_assassin 1723]

I think most of you people who are complaining are just too used to OFP, a game (mind you) that took 5 (!!! years after its release to perfect. You guys are just used to the game being patched to v 1.96 with no bugs, with a billion million addons already made. And thats not the case with ArmA. Oh and dont go harsh on modmakers. Its just that we see ArmA as more than just a game but as an awesome modding platform. And im sure even if BIS neglects to fix all the bugs (which most of them btw i found out were in one way or another due to my comps settings so changing them fixed it) the addonmakers and modders will to an awesome job. So just sit down, calm ur ass down and wait... i'm sure you'll get your $$'s worth.

[kavoven 4]

I think most of you people who are complaining are just too used to OFP, a game (mind you) that took 5 (!!! years after its release to perfect. You guys are just used to the game being patched to v 1.96 with no bugs, with a billion million addons already made. And thats not the case with ArmA. Oh and dont go harsh on modmakers. Its just that we see ArmA as more than just a game but as an awesome modding platform. And im sure even if BIS neglects to fix all the bugs (which most of them btw i found out were in one way or another due to my comps settings so changing them fixed it) the addonmakers and modders will to an awesome job. So just sit down, calm ur ass down and wait... i'm sure you'll get your $$'s worth.

But how can it come that ArmA has in some parts the same bugs as OFP 1.0? I mean, we could expect that ArmA would be on 1.96 state, isn't it?

[sickboy 13]

But how can it come that ArmA has in some parts the same bugs as OFP 1.0? I mean, we could expect that ArmA would be on 1.96 state, isn't it?

As which bugs? Please write down all bugs that were in OFP 1.0, that were also in ArmA 1.0, cause you got me interested

[kavoven 4]

But how can it come that ArmA has in some parts the same bugs as OFP 1.0? I mean, we could expect that ArmA would be on 1.96 state, isn't it?

As which bugs? Please write down all bugs that were in OFP 1.0, that were also in ArmA 1.0, cause you got me interested

Let's see...

- Explosions doesn't have an effect on the soldiers, like the RPG for example. This was a problem with early OFP versions and was fixed in one of the 1.4X versions if I remeber right

- AI still has problems with bridges (introduced with 1.75, because bridges weren't possible before)

- AI immediatly knows where you are when fireing a shot or even set off satchles. Became even worse with the higher OFP versions

- AI still runs through walls(well, at least the player can't anymore)

- Laser designator seems to be ignored (also 1.75, was really hard to get AI do use bombs on the LD target)

- AI still can see through walls

- Cars still drive in the middle of the road

- Choppers still bounce through the air when crashing

- Cars and trucks can still fly through the air like prancing birds...

And so on...

There are indeed improvements, especially with the collision detection, but many problems stayed...

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

I haven't read through all posts in this thread, but I would really like to recommend the following:

TO ALL NEWCOMERS TO ARMA (meaning everybody who plays ArmA without ever having played even a the demo of Operation Flashpoint):

Go pick up Operation Flashpoint GOTY, and play it vanilla. Then get some mods, addons, and in the end, special effects mods like DXDLL and SLX.

UNDERSTAND what ArmA is, where it came from, and then you can dream on to where it's going. I mean, it's direct predecessor is THE MOST FLEXIBLE game out there. If you have recognised that pedigree of ArmA, then you know you cannot have done anything wrong in buying ArmA - you'll just have to patch it up a little more than those who will get it later, but that's just like any software, it's never bug-free when it's released, and thankfully, with Operation Flashpoint as proof, you know that it'll get better. The early releases are definitely the publisher's fault, because they decide when a game hits the stores, not the developers (a game can be "done" but it won't hit the stores until a publishing entity decides to do so). As for blaming the game's advertising of capabilities - take it in an "outlook into the future" way, but looking back, I think ArmA will also surpass all expectations in the long run.

And to agree with Scrub, ArmA is a unique gem indeed. We'll just need some time to savour it right.

[essemm 0]

Hmmm. What should I say?

Well, I guess I agree that *as it is right now*, the game is lackluster. Bugs? Yup. Graphics glitches? Yup. AI issues? Well...maybe.

But that said, I love it, and I am going to love it for a long time. Why? Because, at the end of all the whining and fanboy-ing, after the dust has settled, there will remain a dedicated group of ArmA simulation fans that will make this a great simulation.

I don't mind the bugs and the issues. Why? Well because I see ArmA for what it is: a great springboard. What happens if (when?) companies like BIS are forced out of business because giants like EA and Ubisoft push out mass-produced, non-supported boring games like Need for Speed XXX, simply because it makes them $$$? We suffer...that's what. And I don't want that to happen. I've already seen it happen to the flight sim market, which I used to absolutely love. I don't want it to happen here.

Yes, BIS are after money as well...we all are (at least those of us in a Capatalist society). But at the end of the day, BIS are producing a game that is more about giving back to the community as opposed to making some quick millions and then sodding off to mass-produce the next bland, cross-platform junk that is polluting gamespace these days.

Yeah, it's kinda stinky right now, and yes I would prefer it if the game developers were present on the boards, but I am willing to deal with it in the hope that this game will become what I think it will.

@paco454:

I agree with you (except the class action suit). I feel bad for you and if you decide to leave the community, we will be worse off for not having you here with us. But I would completely understand if you leave ArmA and never return. If you can just stick it out a while longer...mark my words...it will be worth it.

It's like democracy: it's advanced citizenship...you gotta want it bad. Even when you've lost your job to downsizing, and you're standing face to face to a guy decrying at the top of his lungs that which you have spent a lifetime advocating at the top of yours: it's a tough road, and it's not for everybody. But those who stay can experience an amazing thing.

If you don't stay Paco, I hope you *do* get your money back, and hope that you find a game which entertains you.

I for one am staying right here: in with the bugs and crashes and fanboys and whiners. It's gonna be great!

[Gorgi Knootewoot 0]

ArmA looks to console-ish to me. Huge icons when standing in front of vehicle (i prefer nothing and the same system as vanilla OFP had) and huge fonts.

I don't have the full game yet as i wait for the 505 release here in Holland, but in the demo i didn't have a tank interior. In OFP you could sit as commander or gunner or driver and look around in the tank and see the other players sit. In ArmA it looks just like driving a tank as in BF.

For the rest the game looks great, and i can run it at normal settings with shadows disabled. But i think that is normal as when OFP came out i also had to use those settings.

And OFP was also a bug infested game and with every patch bugs where fixed and new bugs where introduced.

So yes, i will buy ArmA as i have full confidence that it will be fixed as BIS did with OFP.

[berghoff 11]

And OFP was also a bug infested game and with every patch bugs where fixed and new bugs where introduced.

Today I tested OFP v1.00 on my newly build system build from spare parts and its even worse than ArmA didn't remember it was so bad - only performance is better.

[cobra@pulse 0]

Tbh, The 505 games street release date is more of the time that I expect BIS would of liked to have released at. Gives them more time to sort out bugs then.

This German and Czech release really was designed to test the market, most fans where expected to buy it and BIS knows how good a beta testing audience you lot are. Thus, thanks to you it gets bug free.

If you think its a disgrace, or get annoyed by this, then oh dear, what a pitty, never mind. Allow it to be patched, BIS fixes things.

[Jack-UK 0]

Tbh, The 505 games street release date is more of the time that I expect BIS would of liked to have released at. Gives them more time to sort out bugs then.

This German and Czech release really was designed to test the market, most fans where expected to buy it and BIS knows how good a beta testing audience you lot are. Thus, thanks to you it gets bug free.

If you think its a disgrace, or get annoyed by this, then oh dear, what a pitty, never mind. Allow it to be patched, BIS fixes things.  

lol you say that.. but when you read back in the 'expected release date' thread everyone was so eager to get their hands on the game and were complaining about the 'late' release of ArmA

OFP 1.0 was worse... but ArmA still has some serious issues which need to be fixed quickly (which im sure they will.. in time lol)

[sluggCDN 0]

My 2-cents worth:

As someone already said why the hell didn't they release an SP & MP demo first to get initial community feedback before game release?.. To cash in on the "hype"?.. Very, very few ppl who never played OFP before bought this game. And really there wasn't enough hype on the market to rip its benefits during Christmas or pursvuade lets say BF2 or CoD or MOHAA fans to switch to ArmA. I belive most of the sales were due to OFP community members. But they'd buy ArmA no matter what. So what drove BIS to release ArmA before demoing it - may I suggest GREED!

You can't win the market with this kind of product or expand your fan base with it. And I agree there are glaring issues with the gameplay that are still present there since OFP. I can say this because I played OFP since the day one, when it came out on the European market before North American release. Many OFP issues that looked completely out of place are overlooked again and again, patch after patch, - and look now they made it into ArmA. One example out of many: you run into an enemy rpg soldier, he has a launcher on his shoulder obviously he has to soulder his launcher, raise his rifle and then shoot u. While he's doing all that you manage to unload an entire clip into his body, but the enemy doesn't give up, he stubbornly continues with his "shoulder-the-launcher" animation and only after it's complete he realizes he's shot - he drops dead 3 secs later. Yes, ArmA is a great platform, but where are the tools to correct the issues?

Yes, ppl were anxious to get their hands on ArmA - their wish came true. What pisses ppl of is that they were fooled into paying for a seemingly outstanding product. I bet after OFP experience, OFPers believed ArmA had to be simply better than OFP - "since ArmA was based on the console-optimised code". don't tell me BIS didn't say that ArmA and OFP: Elite have very little in common. That was one of the selling points: "we oprimized OPF even further, to be played on a console". So forgive me for being so naive - wouldn't you think ArmA would simply fly "outta-the-box"?

Here is my beef:

I knew I had to upgrade my system to fully enjoy ArmA. How does one know how far one has to upgrade in prerparation for an upcoming game? - one looks at minimum system requirements and recommended system requirements for the given game. Then one decides whether to slightly upgrade one's system or build it up from a scratch.

the recomended system requirements (that allow a player to fully enjoy the game) for Arma according to BIS are:

1. 3 Ghz P4 CPU (notice: not optimised for dual core, so why paying big bucks for it if it works fine on P4 according to BIS)

2. 1 gig RAM (is it DDR, DDR2, DDR3 - why not state it, uh?)

3. 256 mb videocard (no mentioning there its AGP or PCI-E)

4. 3 gig disk space

I spent $500cdn just upgrading my system with P4 3ghz HT CPU, latest generation AGP videocard with 512mb of DDR2 video memory (ATI Radeon X1650Pro), and 3 gig of DDR RAM. With all this I very often get ArmA slideshows although at highest possible screen resolution, but still... If I could only know I'd spend all this money towards a completely new system, but now I'm kinda stuck with it. Have BIS release the demo first I would not have spend all this money upgrading an outdated system. So the game info BIS provided is misleading at best. That's a sure way to lose fan support - and BIS needs it. So they better follow up with some ass kicking patch-up, because I personally know some ppl who spent 4 times the amount I spent on upgrading for ArmA and they still don't get far off the ground on their rigs. Wouldn't that be upsetting?...

[SWAT_CDN 0]

@sluggCDN

One Canadian to another...

I don't know which part of the game your raving about, Demo or full Version.

But, I have the full version, issues yea a few, seen and experinced worse with other full release games also.

Your machine will run the full version fine with the right settings and connection to a decent server for your multiplayer enjoyment.

All I can say is I am definatley not upset with my purchase from overseas and I am enjoying learning new stuff that my 5 or so years of playing OFP taught me.

As with OFP the growing pains came and went.

In my opinion (as with others I am sure), the upgrades in Armed Assault will make the pains more bearable.

[essemm 0]

I spent $500cdn just upgrading my system with P4 3ghz HT CPU, latest generation AGP videocard with 512mb of DDR2 video memory (ATI Radeon X1650Pro), and 3 gig of DDR RAM. With all this I very often get ArmA slideshows...

It's never a good idea to upgrade simply for one game.

Besides that, the video card you have isn't that great. It will, however, play ArmA...but you have to set it to the correct settings. Try tweaking it a bit to find the optimal settings.

[Sc@tterbrain 0]

A far as I’m concerned, I do believe the community, if it had been informed there were staffing issues or other problems with the game in which it wasn’t feasible for in house testing that they informed the community they would release the game for sale as a beta and then asked the community to help work out the bugs, I could understand and even support, however this method of misleading everybody is unacceptable, and I think a class action suit should be filed against BIS for intentionally misleading the owners of the German and Chez versions.

If an honest, OFFICIAL response had been made, or was even made tomorrow about this...I would forgive instantly and move on. A simple acknowledgement would both ease fears and regain respect among those who are weary.

If anyone remembers, this kinda reminds me of the release of World War II online. And judging by the decisions being made it will likely have the same result.

***By "official" response I mean something by BIS or their representatives, not speculative forum posts.

[wamingo 1]

*snip*

Have BIS release the demo first I would not have spend all this money upgrading an outdated system.

I just have to ask, what prevented you from waiting for the demo? or at least reading up a bit on it on reviews and such?

A lot of them say the same thing: it requires a monster machine.

So you don't feel the slightest bit responsible for your own purchase?

Not checking up on it makes you to blame really. The game will run on a 2ghz range machine - just not very well. There are no regulations (to my knowledge) for how many fps the minimum requirement has to pull - because low fps is subjective.

On a more happy note - this isn't likely a done deal. This game is under development, or to be exact, the engine is. And we'll most likely see a pile of patches over a long period.

[ericfr 0]

This game is under development, or to be exact, the engine is ?

Is not the same engine that Ofp with the same bugs ?

[Jack-UK 0]

Its an updated version of the OFP Poseidon engine.. theres a few more bugs to iron out which will be addressed in the regular patches

[Paco454 0]

Sigh...

What BI have done in their advertising and PR campaign is no different to what any other company does when selling their games. Infact BI uses purely ingame footage for their PR, unlike some games which use FMV for their advertising...

As for

Quote[/b] ]The hype before this game was released went back years in advance. BIS spent years, it appears, making the game. Plenty of time to do it’s work. One would think after years of development

I'll repeat myself for the billionth time..

Quote[/b] ]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).

...

Quote[/b] ]

@paco454:

I agree with you (except the class action suit). I feel bad for you and if you decide to leave the community, we will be worse off for not having you here with us. But I would completely understand if you leave ArmA and never return. If you can just stick it out a while longer...mark my words...it will be worth it.

It's like democracy: it's advanced citizenship...you gotta want it bad. Even when you've lost your job to downsizing, and you're standing face to face to a guy decrying at the top of his lungs that which you have spent a lifetime advocating at the top of yours: it's a tough road, and it's not for everybody. But those who stay can experience an amazing thing.

If you don't stay Paco, I hope you *do* get your money back, and hope that you find a game which entertains you.

I for one am staying right here: in with the bugs and crashes and fanboys and whiners. It's gonna be great!

Undestood, and stand corrected as I mentioned about the how much time had to make the game.

As far as suing in a class action suit, I believe I went too far with this statement. I take it back on the grounds that emotions were running high and I felt cheated. Not to say I still don't feel cheated, I do still feel cheated.

Even today my request from BIS to respond to the issue of multi joystick support goes unanswered, that in combination with what I conciderd to be an "unacceptable" level of bugs is not proper even for a game like this. Like I said, had they come to community to at least let us know the game state was below par, things might be different, however there are good responses to say, that would kill their bottom line as so I agree. So like a double edge sword it must have been difficult for BIS to make the choice to release the game knowing full well the state of the game was extremely buggy. Nevertheless, I feel cheated as a paying customer.

As far as me leaving, no I'm not going anywhere, and I'm sure most bugs will be fixed and I will continue my fight to have multi joystick support, but I do think BIS should communicate more openly with the community given they sold us out to buy time to fix things. After all, if they're going to use us as beta testers, I think they should be talking to us more since the coffee they're drinking came from my/your pocket.

Thanks again for all the responses,

PACO454

[Sc@tterbrain 0]

Paco, "I feel your pain...."

I would have liked your letter to generate some kind of "official" response. However I think that at this point any such response is unlikely.

I too will be faithfully waiting for future patches and fixes. My loalty however has its limits, and while not yet exhausted, my disappointment is real.

Onward and upward, an unknown future is at hand. I hold hope, and cling to the belief that the stakes are comprehendend by those who have the most invested.

[l mandrake 9]

PACO454

Unwilling, Forced Beta Tester.

Hmm, afraid I can't see the downside here. Not only will you soon have the exact same 'finished' version as the U.K./U.S./Can/Aus players (via patches), but you guys in Czech/Ger/Pol etc have also had SOMETHING to play for the last 2 months while we have had NOTHING (except recently the demo).

Come on, you've had over 2 months headstart on us so you are going to kick our asses online for a while! What's the big deal?

[l mandrake 9]

and I think a class action suit should be filed against BIS for intentionally misleading the owners of the German and Chez versions. These owners should be given a full refund and then compensated for being involuntary, unwilling beta testers.

...and this, I'm afraid, is just bullsh*t.

[Mora2 0]

Things like this should be in ArmA General. Moving.

No, things like this should be locked and the author banned. some of you moderators need to harden the fuck up. I'm so sick of coming here and all i see is twats bitching about bad how ArmA is. ohh cry me a fucking river.

I would have loved to seen you new moderators put a stop to all that. fix the troll problem. but i somehow doubt i will. all I've seen you do is moderate a photography thread.

I want Hellfish6 back  

I love complaining about proven bugs, it shows people arent happy with the game and therefore needs a fix that bis should make.