ArmA 2 on Xbox 360

[maxqubit 1]

The 'utter crap' before that was RS:Vegas ... how they dare to invent the fluid 3rd person 'cover' system. Those devs came directly from hell i would argue. Ppl should be banned for live if they play that game.

Oh yea, the amazing realistic cover system that let you see clearly around a corner without actually sticking your head out. Sorry but that's about as arcade as it gets!

I was talking fun mate, as in FUN!

Realism is only fun for some time. My life is realistic enough in itself. I like realism in games, but i'm not gonna join the 'Church Of Realism'.

[Maddmatt 1]

The 'utter crap' before that was RS:Vegas ... how they dare to invent the fluid 3rd person 'cover' system. Those devs came directly from hell i would argue. Ppl should be banned for live if they play that game.

Oh yea, the amazing realistic cover system that let you see clearly around a corner without actually sticking your head out. Sorry but that's about as arcade as it gets!

I was talking fun mate, as in FUN!

Realism is only fun for some time. My life is realistic enough in itself. I like realism in games, but i'm not gonna join the 'Church Of Realism'.

Yea but seeing around corners like that is just ridiculous IMO. Even when you look down a street and see nobody, the guys hiding around the corners can see you clearly and watch your every move. All you need to get plenty of kills is a good camping spot.

If ArmA 2 did something like that, I would be really disappointed. ArmA already has a few arcadish features that should be removed, such as pilots being able to eject out of choppers (except the KA-50, because the real one has ejection seats).

[jtec 0]

I didnt say get rid of arma being a sim but also include a basic config that allows arcade style games for mindless blasting crazyness. It would intice others into the game that wouldnt normally buy a sim thus increasing the sales, population and also people moving over to the dark sim side

At the end of the day i dont know many people that enjoy a good sim, but with a idea along these lines you could be able to wean people off the arcade style and straight into a more tactical realistic game. The xbox ranking system could even help you move into that.

[maxqubit 1]

The 'utter crap' before that was RS:Vegas ... how they dare to invent the fluid 3rd person 'cover' system. Those devs came directly from hell i would argue. Ppl should be banned for live if they play that game.

Oh yea, the amazing realistic cover system that let you see clearly around a corner without actually sticking your head out. Sorry but that's about as arcade as it gets!

I was talking fun mate, as in FUN!

Realism is only fun for some time. My life is realistic enough in itself. I like realism in games, but i'm not gonna join the 'Church Of Realism'.

Yea but seeing around corners like that is just ridiculous IMO.

Respawn/restart when you are dead, now THAT IS realistic. Wowie!

It is a game man, it is for fun.

[-Snafu- 78]

There is nothing but arcade like shooters for the 360 trust me we don't need anymore of that crap.

The last 'crap' i bought was Bioshock. A true mindless arcade shooter.

The 'utter crap' before that was RS:Vegas ... how they dare to invent the fluid 3rd person 'cover' system. Those devs came directly from hell i would argue. Ppl should be banned for live if they play that game.

Fun? Games are not intended for that. Games are work, you have to work very hard. You need a pc, a mouse, a keyboard, a desk, a lot of time AND money. Know your hardware, software, patches, buglists, tweaks. Know all current military tactics, know all zillion keyboard commands, know how to script your own missions (by spending countless hours in the wiki's of all kinds), better still, you have to become a 'modder', the highest rank in gaming you can achieve. You can spend years with just one game. It is hard work i tell you ... but it is worth it. You have this feeling you really achieved something. Fun? What are you talking about.

I'm pretty sure he meant that ArmA 2 would be welcomed on a console due to the fact that most shooters that come out are usually the same.

There really is no need for your attitude.

[Maddmatt 1]

Respawn/restart when you are dead, now THAT IS realistic. Wowie!

Not all maps in ArmA have that

Quote[/b] ]It is a game man, it is for fun.

Of course, but I enjoy a decent amount of realism in games. ArmA/OFP games are known for realism and it would be an insult to the fans if they took that away. Having ArmA turned into an arcade shooter would ruin it, it wouldn't be fun for very long.

I play arcadish games too, but the fun doesn't last as long.

[maxqubit 1]

Respawn/restart when you are dead, now THAT IS realistic. Wowie!

Not all maps in ArmA have that :p

Look here, the fact that you CAN replay (not perhaps in the same session, but in the next session or so) is, when you think about it, a real number 1 gameplay breaker ... plain and simple because you are allowed to take risks you'd NEVER take irl. E.g. flying a chopper. Irl you don't go 'Hey a chopper, let's hop in to fly around' but games allow you to do just that, even the most hard-core simulation games ...

... if you truely would be in the 'Curch Of Realism' than the first rule would be '1. When you are dead you are dead' ... and what would follow would be not a different game, but a totally different gameplay, because you would sh*t your pants to even go out in the open ... a sniper would become 1000x more threatening and your heart would beat like crazy just by the thought of 1 single sniper lurking on the map.

Now, because you probably can't sell a 'game' with this gameplay (because who'd want to 'play' it) it is not made. But that means your flushed 'realism' down the toilet with it.

Relative to the 'When you are dead you are dead' rule, the 3rd perspective of the Vegas 'cover' system is just a very mild gameplay element.

Edit: But, hey, i'm looking forward to ArmA2/360 (and OFP2/360). Of ArmA2/360 i hope it will have at least the same quality as Elite had, and that would mean a.o. good interface, 'lite' mission editor and very streamlined XBL support. Top that of with possible DLC and who knows 'mods by DLC' and i think i will spend countless hours in that universe.

[Maddmatt 1]

Respawn/restart when you are dead, now THAT IS realistic. Wowie!

Not all maps in ArmA have that

Look here, the fact that you CAN replay (not perhaps in the same session, but in the next session or so) is, when you think about it, a real number 1 gameplay breaker ... plain and simple because you are allowed to take risks you'd NEVER take irl. E.g. flying a chopper. Irl you don't go 'Hey a chopper, let's hop in to fly around' but games allow you to do just that, even the most hard-core simulation games ...

... if you truely would be in the 'Curch Of Realism' than the first rule would be '1. When you are dead you are dead' ... and what would follow would be not a different game, but a totally different gameplay, because you would sh*t your pants to even go out in the open ... a sniper would become 1000x more threatening and your heart would beat like crazy just by the thought of 1 single sniper lurking on the map.

Now, because you probably can't sell a 'game' with this gameplay (because who'd want to 'play' it) it is not made. But that means your flushed 'realism' down the toilet with it.

Well if I was that obsessed with realism then I wouldn't bother with games. I just find that arcade action from the likes of Rainbow Six Vegas gets boring fast. I like a decent amount of realism, I don't want everyone to have the magical ability to see around a corner without exposing them self. I don't want an automatic aiming system or anything like that.

I just want a game to depict reality better than the likes of Battlefield or CS.

Obviously there's limits with how much realism I want, I don't want to die for real

You think the fans would be happy if ArmA 2 threw away the realism?

I don't care that much for ArmA2 on the 360, because I don't have a console. I just don't want the PC version dumbed down because of it. Too many good games were ruined because the PC version got dumbed down with the console version - Deus Ex 2 being one of the ugliest examples

Quote[/b] ]

Relative to the 'When you are dead you are dead' rule, the 3rd perspective of the Vegas 'cover' system is just a very mild gameplay element.

No, it's utter crap. It's going in the direction of having a built in wall-hack

[maxqubit 1]

Respawn/restart when you are dead, now THAT IS realistic. Wowie!

Not all maps in ArmA have that :p

Look here, the fact that you CAN replay (not perhaps in the same session, but in the next session or so) is, when you think about it, a real number 1 gameplay breaker ... plain and simple because you are allowed to take risks you'd NEVER take irl. E.g. flying a chopper. Irl you don't go 'Hey a chopper, let's hop in to fly around' but games allow you to do just that, even the most hard-core simulation games ...

... if you truely would be in the 'Curch Of Realism' than the first rule would be '1. When you are dead you are dead' ... and what would follow would be not a different game, but a totally different gameplay, because you would sh*t your pants to even go out in the open ... a sniper would become 1000x more threatening and your heart would beat like crazy just by the thought of 1 single sniper lurking on the map.

Now, because you probably can't sell a 'game' with this gameplay (because who'd want to 'play' it) it is not made. But that means your flushed 'realism' down the toilet with it.

Well if I was that obsessed with realism then I wouldn't bother with games. I just find that arcade action from the likes of Rainbow Six Vegas gets boring fast. I like a decent amount of realism, I don't want everyone to have the magical ability to see around a corner without exposing them self. I don't want an automatic aiming system or anything like that.

I just want a game to depict reality better than the likes of Battlefield or CS.

Obviously there's limits with how much realism I want, I don't want to die for real :rolleyes:

You think the fans would be happy if ArmA 2 threw away the realism?

I don't care that much for ArmA2 on the 360, because I don't have a console. I just don't want the PC version dumbed down because of it. Too many good games were ruined because the PC version got dumbed down with the console version - Deus Ex 2 being one of the ugliest examples :(

Quote[/b] ]

Relative to the 'When you are dead you are dead' rule, the 3rd perspective of the Vegas 'cover' system is just a very mild gameplay element.

No, it's utter crap. It's going in the direction of having a built in wall-hack :p

So you agree there are limits ... now, everybody draws his own line, and your line is not my line (and vice versa)

The idea that 'good pc games' were ruined by 'consoles' is just bollocks. They were ruined by devs/publishers with $$$ signs in their eyes, it really has nothing to do with the components used in a consoles which, esp in the case of 360, are exactly the same as in an good pc (only without the driver/tweak troubles, but we've the RoD, thank you M$)

So blame the devs/publishers and if ArmA2 is 'dumbed down' BLAME BIS!!!! (not me mate, not me, i want as good a game as you)

I play 360 because that works 'out-of-the-box' and and games also works 'out-of-the-box'. I don't have the time, money and focus to 'beg my pc to play a proper game'. It is like having a car, you turn the key, it starts, you drive ... you don't want no tweaking, patching and stuff just to go to work. A car is a tool to 'bring you from A to B', and the 360 is a tool to 'play games' ... if you give a game as a present, for gods sake give the console version, not the pc version, that only leads to troubles.

[Maddmatt 1]

So you agree there are limits ... now, everybody draws his own line, and your line is not my line (and vice versa)

Exactly.

Quote[/b] ]

The idea that 'good pc games' were ruined by 'consoles' is just bollocks. They were ruined by devs/publishers with $$$ signs in their eyes, it really has nothing to do with the components used in a consoles which, esp in the case of 360, are exactly the same as in an good pc (only without the driver/tweak troubles, but we've the RoD, thank you M$

It's a bit of both IMO. They try to make the game appeal to the largest audience possible by bringing it to multiple platforms and making it simple. Often neglecting all but one platform.

Of course it's got nothing to do with hardware components in the 360, it's just a stripped-down PC.

Quote[/b] ]

So blame the devs/publishers and if ArmA2 is 'dumbed down' BLAME BIS!!!! (not me mate, not me, i want as good a game as you)

Of course I'll blame them. I'll hate them forever if they do that.

Quote[/b] ]

I play 360 because that works 'out-of-the-box' and and games also works . I don't have the time, money and focus to 'beg my pc to play a proper game'. It is like having a car, you turn the key, it starts, you drive ... you don't want no tweaking, patching and stuff just to go to work. A car is a tool to 'bring you from A to B', and the 360 is a tool to 'play games' ... if you give a game as a present, for gods sake give the console version, not the pc version, that only leads to troubles.

My PC games work out of the box. Only difference is that they need to be installed, but that makes for faster loading times. If a game doesn't work 'out-of-the-box', then something is wrong. Patches improve the game. And Xbox 360 games get patches too.

I'd much rather play a game on a good PC than a console. Mainly because of the controls. And modding.

[maxqubit 1]

So you agree there are limits ... now, everybody draws his own line, and your line is not my line (and vice versa)

Exactly.

Quote[/b] ]

The idea that 'good pc games' were ruined by 'consoles' is just bollocks. They were ruined by devs/publishers with $$$ signs in their eyes, it really has nothing to do with the components used in a consoles which, esp in the case of 360, are exactly the same as in an good pc (only without the driver/tweak troubles, but we've the RoD, thank you M$)

It's a bit of both IMO. They try to make the game appeal to the largest audience possible by bringing it to multiple platforms and making it simple. Often neglecting all but one platform.

Of course it's got nothing to do with hardware components in the 360, it's just a stripped-down PC.

Quote[/b] ]

So blame the devs/publishers and if ArmA2 is 'dumbed down' BLAME BIS!!!! (not me mate, not me, i want as good a game as you)

Of course I'll blame them. I'll hate them forever if they do that.

Quote[/b] ]

I play 360 because that works 'out-of-the-box' and and games also works . I don't have the time, money and focus to 'beg my pc to play a proper game'. It is like having a car, you turn the key, it starts, you drive ... you don't want no tweaking, patching and stuff just to go to work. A car is a tool to 'bring you from A to B', and the 360 is a tool to 'play games' ... if you give a game as a present, for gods sake give the console version, not the pc version, that only leads to troubles.

My PC games work out of the box. Only difference is that they need to be installed, but that makes for faster loading times. If a game doesn't work 'out-of-the-box', then something is wrong. Patches improve the game. And Xbox 360 games get patches too.

I'd much rather play a game on a good PC than a console. Mainly because of the controls. And modding.

Seems like everything is settled then:)

(and again, i understand pc is THE WAY if you are into developing mods and/or making scripts because you need a keyboard/mouse ... but to actually play a console can very well fit the bill. Once i was a mouse/keyboard junkie, but now i like (the comfort of) the 360 controller)

[Madus_Maximus 0]

With the power of modern consoles these days in all fairness many "ported" games from PC can generally have the same features on all formats. Graphics may be less impressive than the highest PC settings, but rememebr that all PC games are made with scalability in mind anyway so they can work on lesser PC's that may have less power than even the consoles themselves have, yet still look "ok" and have all the same features.

The only real differences in most games are the control systems and graphics at the end of the day. The advantage of consoles though is that everyone has the exact same settings and it's a more even playing field in MP games, and people have the same controls. On PC you could have people with trackir and massively expensive joysticks and uber PC's with everything on the highest settings whilst playing someone on very low with just a mouse and keyboard. Who has the advantage?

[volkov956 0]

I am weary of consoles i may have both a X360 and a PS3 but FPS games seem bleh on console half the time. 3rd Person shooters work not bad on console though.

I played OFP Elite on Xbox but immediantly went back to OFP for PC controls just blew to tell ya the truth. oh yeah and sluggish performance from my Xbox also pissed me off

I hope in my wishes that it never makes it to the 360 cause developers never like making 2 different games for eash system they usually take what they wanted tone it down here and there and multi platform it in a way that requires as little tweaking and extra development costs. But that comes with the terriotry to try and make more money even if they kill one of the versions.

[maxqubit 1]

TBH, i belive in a ArmA2/360 but have severe doubts in a PS3 version. Imho PC and 360 are quite similar to develop for + you have the knowledge of Elite which gives you nearly copy/paste for controls and XBL ... but PS3 version????

Egoistic perhaps, but i could do without the PS3 version:)

[Grimnirsson 0]

Quote[/b] ]Rainbow Six Vegas is nothing like the old Rainbow Six games on PC, now those were proper tactical shooters

I remember that the R6 games I played on the Dreamcast were not arcadish crap, yeah on the Dreamcast, that wonderful console

Grim

[Heatseeker 0]

Egoistic perhaps, but i could do without the PS3 version:)

Sure, the time spent on making a ps3 version would be put into better use if it was time spent on making a even better x360 version...

And the time spent assembling the 360 and ps3 versions would be put into better use if it was spent developing a even better PC version... the mother of all platforms, obviously.

So i guess i could live without any console version .

[maxqubit 1]

So i guess i could live without any console version :mock: .

Yeah, but THE question is, can BIS live without the console(s) version? (What are the sales stats on ArmA/pc anyway? in the 10k's, 100k's ... ehhh the OFP milestone 1Meg?)

[Heatseeker 0]

So i guess i could live without any console version .

Yeah, but THE question is, can BIS live without the console(s) version? (What are the sales stats on ArmA/pc anyway? in the 10k's, 100k's ... ehhh the OFP milestone 1Meg?)

Ofcourse they can, in about one year most console games will be stuff for kids and sports games.

Last batch of consoles already lost their shiny "next gen" tittle, a decent PC is currently expensive but in one year a PC that surpasses the xbox by a long shot will be affordable to most gamers.

By then a console Arma version wont make sense since most gamers will have a suitable platform to get the most from a game like this, a PC.

And the last thing people will want is a multiplatform PC build crippled by the xbox360's lack of ram or gpu...

[Grimnirsson 0]

Quote[/b] ]By then a console Arma version wont make sense since most gamers will have a suitable platform to get the most from a game like this, a PC.

You seem to ignore the simple fact that there are gamers who don't consider a PC a 'suitable platform' for gaming in general. I don't want to sit in front of a monitor with a mouse and keyboard to play my games. I consider it much more fun to sit in my easy chair in front of my 81cm HDTV.

Grim

[maxqubit 1]

Quote[/b] ]By then a console Arma version wont make sense since most gamers will have a suitable platform to get the most from a game like this, a PC.

You seem to ignore the simple fact that there are gamers who don't consider a PC a 'suitable platform' for gaming in general. I don't want to sit in front of a monitor with a mouse and keyboard to play my games. I consider it much more fun to sit in my easy chair in front of my 81cm HDTV.

Grim

Exactly Grim!!!

(I consider a decent pc a device to type just this post, and do some boring Excel stuff etc:)

And Heatseeker rightfully admits

Quote[/b] ]a decent PC is currently expensive

Let me make that as 'A decent pc is ALWAYS expensive', cause, let's be fair, history is on my side. Otoh my current pc is 'decent' enough to play good old OFP flawlessly:)

But the question still stands. Is ArmA/pc (after nearly 1 year) a succcess in terms of sales? I would like to know (nbr of copies sold, etc.)

[mattxr 9]

Having a console version is not bad at all, yes it may have its Advanatges and Disadvantges but im sure the Advantages rule over the disadvantages, as it opens up a hole new world of people who might say hey i like this, oh theres a PC version have a look into it and see all modding cababilites..

The more people that can access ArmA2 the better.

Just looking at the PC version already it looks amazing. So i have no dowbt BIS will pull off a great job.

Sorry for my miss spelling but im in a hurry,

[iceman77 18]

Personally i hope they dont make a console version. It means the pc version will be nowhere near as good as it should be. and that theyd have to cut things out of the game. jus my opinion

Considering how Elite bombed on the xbox they'd have to pull something pretty special off to compete with the other big names.

the population on the xbox elite version was the only problem with the game....they did an ecxellent job porting it over..

[Kirby 2]

Lemme just point out, again (Max has already mentioned it i beleive)that OFP:E and the X360 were released very close together. Everyone went off and bought their 360's and OFP, being not backwards compatable and then considered last gen even a few days or something after its realse, didn't sell well.

Also, I personaly think a PC is the ultamate gamin platform. But Many of us arn't rich old men with plenty of time when we retired, PC's are too expensive. And they are just so stupidly confusing.

I'm pretty sure having ArmA ported to console will most likley not "dumb down" future PC developments.

I also just had an idea for DLC: maybe there could be a central server that people (maybe only people officaly recognised by BIS... Or maybe even voted on by the community, like the RHS groups, WGL (ACE) groups, ect.) could upload their mods/addons to. And 360's could somehow access this on a seperate menu under "ArmA Downloads".

[opf12345 0]

Any chance of it being released for the ps3?

[ziiip 1]

360 all the way! Max graphics and no choppiness (well, at least for most of the time), though I wish that a keyboard/mouse accessory will come out before ArmA2, cause fighting against a non-braindead AI can really be lethal.

ofp: yeah, it's gonna be released for the ps3 too.