Why Does Everyone get so up tight on these forums?

[kutya 0]

Dunno, my strategy is to wait for all the hotheads to leave when the next highly marketed FPS comes out and then I plan to come back and do some real stuff. Until then, stick to other forums or be prepared to read tons of useless text (similar to this). Regarding multiplayer, I strictly suggest protected servers.

It's a matter of choosing quality or quantity. When ArmA came out, quantity went into the skies. Since I choose quality, I'll stay mostly silent until things calm down, say in a year. Maybe even less.

I recall reading almost every thread that appeared. Now I just run through the new ones and usually find 1 or 2 interesting from a couple of pages.

[odjob 0]

A lot of realism gamers are incredibly sad obsessed people, who take the game too seriously, have no life e.t.c and have a mixed up perception of what should be made a big deal over.

Making this statement on a forum for a game that is marketed with words like "realism" and "sim" doesnt make much sence now does it?

[Heatseeker 0]

I dont find the gameplay any slower, its actually faster and less clumsy.

-Walking is faster and shooting on the move is more effective.

-Cant reload on the move? Couldnt do it in OPF anyway..

-Leaning definetly helps alot!

-Ability to perform a combat roll in the prone position has saved my virtual life countless times, in OPF while being shot at you had no chances to evade, now you can.

-Players are no longer stuck in crouch position while holding a rocket launcher, you can now run.

-Improved colision detection, no more clipping or getting stuck.

The only diference is that shooting is a little harder but if you play close quarters you use the crosshairs anyway...

In OPF CQB maps the G36 was king, replace it with the SAW in Arma and you get about the same.

I think these are solid arguements compaired to the "OPF feel" ? I think Arma took the OPF gameplay and improved it, cant see how someone can disagree with that.

[Maddmatt 1]

A lot of realism gamers are incredibly sad obsessed people, who take the game too seriously, have no life e.t.c and have a mixed up perception of what should be made a big deal over.

Well if you're here then you must be a realism gamer

I guess you just posted that here to see the reactions

[Bald_Maggot 0]

well thanks guys for your comments and i have read and i understand how you guys see that it is.

I guess for me the bottom line is that im confident that the sense od community will develop back to the OFP days once the ArmA tools have been released, as these are a vital part of the Community.

I have to say that at the moment i hardly ever play with ArmA simply as it just doesnt feel it gives me the freedom that OFP does yet. That doesnt mean that in the future things will change.

For me, buildings that are interactive and enterable are crucial for me and the ability to interact with the environment (open doors, switch off power supplys etc) as well as things like being able to change the appearance of the player models (take off helmet, roll up sleeves etc) i think that for me these things give me the full simulation effect and make me want to play more.

These are my personal preferences no more, no less and i know that at some point, once the tools are released that these will be implamented and i shall fall in love with ArmA just as i did with OFP

[Bunks 0]

cause CTF was way better in OFP than now in ArmA, thats the only reason.

BIS would need to patch and change the ArmA infantry feeling a lot till the CTF players would be happy.

Disagree completely. The gameplay is a bit more realistic, it doesn't ruin CTF. It's just that some people seem to prefer a more 'arcadey' style. CTF in ArmA is good fun, I have played it and enjoyed it. You guys just need to accept the changes and stop asking to have your old gameplay back.

If you hate change so much then you can always go and play OFP.

When I see posts like this one, it removes all doubt as to where this community and game is headed.

[Clavicula_nox4817 0]

cause CTF was way better in OFP than now in ArmA, thats the only reason.

BIS would need to patch and change the ArmA infantry feeling a lot till the CTF players would be happy.

Disagree completely. The gameplay is a bit more realistic, it doesn't ruin CTF. It's just that some people seem to prefer a more 'arcadey' style. CTF in ArmA is good fun, I have played it and enjoyed it. You guys just need to accept the changes and stop asking to have your old gameplay back.

If you hate change so much then you can always go and play OFP.

When I see posts like this one, it removes all doubt as to where this community and game is headed.

What's wrong with honest discussion, isn't that what you were talking about earlier? Is the only acceptable discussion in your mind supposed to be negative?

[Bald_Maggot 0]

i think people on these forums need to realise there is a difference between personal taste and the development of a commercial game.

These two things rarely are combined together as everyone each has thier own different ideas and objectives.

OFP was a military sim, possibly the only one of its kind and ArmA is an "extension" of that.

This means that when people have ideas and suggestions for addons or things to be included in official patches they HAVE to bear in mind that this is the type of game that is being developed so additional content has to be as accurate as possible and more directed to the simulator experience rather than the FPS.

This doesnt mean though that ArmA would not benifit from any sort of addition, and those that protect the foundations of the ArmA engine have to understand this too.

Ultimatly what i desire for the ArmA engine is for it to build upon the old style of OFP, stability for example is something i hope will be taken seriously, as well as game physics and issues with graphic bugs.

These things im sure will be built and improved on by BIS.

Its up to the mod community to be strong enough to develop thier own personal ideas and share them!

[Infam0us 10]

Ive scanned these forums for quite some while now, and the one thing that im constantly aware of is how wound up people get over silly things.

Welcome to the internet

Nuff said really

[Dudester 0]

Maybe the slower movements, the freezed movement during reload, the not going in crouch position again after sprint and the finishing of the animation by death thing...to name a few.

i like CTF in ArmA too, but in OFP it was all faster and you got better chances to get away if u got under fire by moving crazy around like a headless chicken.

Now the model of the soldier feels like a robot if you control it, maybe we are still so used to the old OFP feeling, dont know.

Sorry didn't answer the post earlier, but i picked out what Frantic has wrote because he has sort of hit the nail on the head.

Can i just say "CTF" in ofp was all about speed, skill, and not some slowed down junk that AA is now. You needed that speed and skill, to make you stand out as a very good individual player in ofp.

Armed Assault, the movment is just to slow.

OFP. I used to be able to run for a flag, kill the defender, and then maybe 4 to 5 guys in quick succession before returning with the flag. this BTW is what made Ofp so good.

Yes i do still play this game (after all i did pay for it) but it really never has had me hooked, why? well because it lacks the speed that ofp had, now its just a big camp map depending on the size of the map.

[ebud 18]

A lot of realism gamers are incredibly sad obsessed people, who take the game too seriously, have no life e.t.c and have a mixed up perception of what should be made a big deal over.

Haha, it's silly casual gamers that want to take this game apart and turn it into another BF2 clone. Just because you can't see the forest for the trees doesn't mean shit.

[Scrub 0]

i think people on these forums need to realise there is a difference between personal taste and the development of a commercial game.

These two things rarely are combined together as everyone each has thier own different ideas and objectives.

OFP was a military sim, possibly the only one of its kind and ArmA is an "extension" of that.

This means that when people have ideas and suggestions for addons or things to be included in official patches they HAVE to bear in mind that this is the type of game that is being developed so additional content has to be as accurate as possible and more directed to the simulator experience rather than the FPS.

This doesnt mean though that ArmA would not benifit from any sort of addition, and those that protect the foundations of the ArmA engine have to understand this too.

Ultimatly what i desire for the ArmA engine is for it to build upon the old style of OFP, stability for example is something i hope will be taken seriously, as well as game physics and issues with graphic bugs.

These things im sure will be built and improved on by BIS.

Its up to the mod community to be strong enough to develop thier own personal ideas and share them!

Well balanced and thought out. Thank you for the understanding that ArmA is what it is. And it is customizable. As you say, the community will come together after a few of the awesome addons and mods wrap up their development. Won't take long for all the people's dreams of what ArmA WILL be, to overshadow what they they thought ArmA SHOULD have been.

[INNOCENT&CLUELESS 0]

Yea, like Bill said:

It`s the ENABLER, stupid!

BI should fire the remaining addon/mission makers, they are to few anyway to deliver high quality output as we seen and employ a few more devs dealing with the engine and tools.

Not that they are stupid or so, but the effort they made is by far not sufficient so they can save the money for the core.

AND THE TOOLS!

Then we could take care for the content.

[Marus 0]

...

Can i just say "CTF" in ofp was all about speed, skill, and not some slowed down junk that AA is now. You needed that speed and skill, to make you stand out as a very good individual player in ofp.

Armed Assault, the movment is just to slow.

...

Yes, way to slow.

[4 IN 1 0]

someone said that BI try to make flight sim + tank sim + driving sim + trooper sim and was not a good idea, i'd say wrong

BI want to make a simple (relatively) realistic combat sim which you could do many many things in it, while gamers want it to be CS+BF+RO+HL+....(whatever name you can add)

and thats even worser

[Marus 0]

Gamer want it to be 100% OFP movment, because OFP movement was great.

I like the new animations, but they are to slow.

[4 IN 1 0]

Gamer want it to be 100% OFP movment, because OFP movement was great.

I like the new animations, but they are to slow.

well a little bit slow in some part yes maybe but i also think OFP one is a bit too fast and lack of weight

[baddo 0]

Then we could take care for the content.

I am sure you can buy a game engine from somewhere and develop a game on top of it as you wish. Go ahead and do it but don't drag me into it.

[INNOCENT&CLUELESS 0]

I talk about missions/islands/units/vehicles/mission logic.

I do not know what you where playing, but I can not remember missions without addons in OFP if it comes to excellent missions with highly realistic gameplay.

Even if you used standard BI units, most of the time there was a tiny addon tweaking the configs of the units.

Baddo, if you want to be just a user, fine, there are many studios happy to serve you.

I never said: Baddo is obliged to code the content.

[baddo 0]

Baddo, if you want to be just a user, fine, there are many studios happy to serve you.

...and BIS is one of them. They are selling a game to us via publishers. They are not selling just a game engine in the package that says "ArmA". There is a significant difference and to be honest with you, I think you didn't yet understand this difference.

It's quite radical to tell BIS to fire their workers, don't you think? They are creating a game, their primary target is not to provide you a game engine + documentation which you can then use to build a game. I want a game that can actually be used for playing and having fun as first priority, right out-of-the-box, and I am absolutely sure the majority of people who buy ArmA agree with this. You are telling BIS to fire their workers who create content, and concentrate on the game engine and on the tools? For sure they will lose a lot of customers if they do that.

It's great to be able to modify a game and even better if the developers of the game (or the copyright owners) are cool with it, and even provide support for the people who want to modify the game. BUT I want the game first, with content. A suggestion to fire the people who create the content is... not a good suggestion in my humble opinion.

It would be interesting to see statistical analysis of how many of the people who bought OFP or ArmA have actually created content for them. My bet is that the portion who create content is a small minority of the total number of people who bought these games. Most people just want to play and have fun without going into the technical details of the game engine and the content.

[mattxr 9]

I can tell you why, becuase us old school boys dont like the whining of the new boys so we get angry becuase they are still way to young to understand things which then courses a flamewar between the two which then attracts everyone else which esclilates into something big which then everyone gets PRed lol.

BTW this thead turned from a *why to an *In to i see people fighting lol.

[INNOCENT&CLUELESS 0]

Hehe Baddo, you are ignorant.

It is a fact that BI sold us a bugged engine and not game.

The quality of the missions and addons telling me just one thing:

I can consider them as examples how to make a real game, but not really good examples, especially if you remember the quality of OFP missions.

To fire means if they are short on money and hence resources I would try to make at least one thing 100% rather then making a lot of things half. And the quality of the missions suggesting me that they fired all their mission makers which made OFP and employed new guys. Or for any reason they forgot how to test.

Quote[/b] ]There is a significant difference and to be honest with you, I think you didn't yet understand this difference.

I am stupid, sorry, why I didn`t recognize it is a game while they always try to suggest it is a mil-sim in the adds and how close it is to VBS2. I need to learn more from you.

On the long run I am sure BI can only stay in business by

A.) employ more devs and try to improve the revenue stream even from gamers by anual license fees or

B.) concentrate on a smaller chunk of a full blown "game" but this 100% now

[4 IN 1 0]

Hehe Baddo, you are ignorant.

It is a fact that BI sold us a bugged engine and not  game.

The quality of the missions and addons telling me just one thing:

I can consider them as examples how to make a real game, but not really good examples, especially if you remember the quality of OFP missions.

To fire means if they are short on money and hence resources I would try to make at least one thing 100% rather then making a lot of things half. And the quality of the missions suggesting me that they fired all their mission makers which made OFP and employed new guys. Or for any reason they forgot how to test.

Quote[/b] ]There is a significant difference and to be honest with you, I think you didn't yet understand this difference.

I am stupid, sorry, why I didn`t recognize it is a game while they always try to suggest it is a mil-sim in the adds and how close it is to VBS2. I need to learn more from you.

On the long run I am sure BI can only stay in business by

A.) employ more devs and try to improve the revenue stream even from gamers by anual license fees or

B.) concentrate on a smaller chunk of a full blown "game" but this 100% now

bear in mind not only low on money, BI also suffer from tight publisher deadline, failing to do might cause BI many problem, now that time is no longer a problem, money and resources are the bigger problem now

[INNOCENT&CLUELESS 0]

I understand the pressure, but I can not see any excuse for BI!?!

They made the deal and they should know their business.

And I am sure the community would allow the utilization of parts of their addons or missions or fixes, for same cases I know they would do it for free.

So BI would just have to test, make the paperwork to make it clear between community member and BI, and HOLLA.

But I know that there are commitments to the publishers regarding tools, content e.t.c., and I am sure that some (I know at least 1) Publishers would prefer to get the current stuff fixed since the sales numbers suffering from bugs.

Another Pack like GOTY or so brings always fresh cash, but who would buy it after this experience?

[Rhodite 3]

Hindsight is a luxury BIS did not have.

Its easy to tell BIS what they should/could of done.

Now rather than starting down the track of ranting at BIS (again) stick to the topic "Why Does Everyone get so up tight on these forums? "

First and last request to stay on topic.

Thankyou and happy posting.