New interview with Maruk

[SeppSchrot 0]

You are so damn right, MadRussian.

I just realized once again how much I love the OFP flavoured games.

Nearly every day I build/change/tweak something for it and testplay it.

Since 2001. No boredom foreseeable yet.

BIS must be insane if they want to concentrate on consoles (where I guess customization will be limited to mission editing).

Regarding montly fees, I wouldn't mind paying for regular upgrades that enhance core functionalities (unlike QG that is).

[NoRailgunner 0]

Sorry but efefia does wildcatting. Calm down...

Consoles are only another economic option - in fact many developer/publisher do that - take a look

[baddo 0]

BIS must be insane if they want to concentrate on consoles

The PC platform technology is horrible, if you haven't yet seen that then you must open your eyes please

If someone is saying they want to do games for consoles as the PC platform has too many problems, it's far from being insane. It's just looking for a better platform to create entertainment products for.

Maybe for some people troubleshooting the endless problems in the PC hardware and software is entertainment, but I dare to say that for the majority of the people living on this planet called Earth it is not.

I don't have a console but I consider to buy one. Probably depends on how ArmA II turns out. I've played console games though, and I certainly enjoyed the problem-free gaming. Things Just Workedâ„¢ and I bet money on that you can't say the same when you try to play games on your PC.

[hardrock 1]

Maybe for some people troubleshooting the endless problems in the PC hardware and software is entertainment, but I dare to say that for the majority of the people living on this planet called Earth it is not.

Which really makes me wonder why not much more people have a mac (money maybe?). I don't own a mac and I won't do either for particular reasons, but it's just the plain best platform for the average computer user IMO.

Of course, it still can't beat consoles. Although I don't like consoles that much, I can see very well why they are so successful. So BIS, what about programming ArmA II for Mac/Linux? (btw., Egosoft is just about relasing Mac/Linux-Versions of X3-Reunion)

This was, of course, just a joke. Excuse my little excursus.

[MehMan 0]

BIS must be insane if they want to concentrate on consoles

The PC platform technology is horrible, if you haven't yet seen that then you must open your eyes please

If someone is saying they want to do games for consoles as the PC platform has too many problems, it's far from being insane. It's just looking for a better platform to create entertainment products for.

Maybe for some people troubleshooting the endless problems in the PC hardware and software is entertainment, but I dare to say that for the majority of the people living on this planet called Earth it is not.

I don't have a console but I consider to buy one. Probably depends on how ArmA II turns out. I've played console games though, and I certainly enjoyed the problem-free gaming. Things Just Workedâ„¢ and I bet money on that you can't say the same when you try to play games on your PC.

Indeed, and consoles are a very good gaming platform because the hardware is the same everywhere and it all works the same for everybody! Less troubleshooting, less hardware bugs. More fun. It truly is just pop it in and have fun. But unfortunatley consoles don't offer modability like the PC does, in terms of mods and addons and user mission.

[frederf 0]

The line between consoles and PCs is diminishing rapidly. There's only one qualitative distinction between the two: how strict the controls are on hardware and software design. There's no other difference.

It is this way that Macs are the most "console-like" of personal computers. The hardware of Macs lack the variation of PCs to about two orders of magnitude. The software tends to work well because it only has to work on a limited hardware set. When was the last time you had to scour the 'net for a driver for a Mac accessory hardware device?

BIS would hardly be insane too apply some or all of its focus on consoles simply due to the large profits to be had. The revenue generated difference between a nominal PC title and a nominal console title is immense.

On the other hand the console market is a singing siren to developers such as BIS, who make their very existence on games that are complex, obscure, and niche. The natural shift of product when switching to consoles is to water-down, simplify, and glossify their products. Controllers have 10 buttons instead of 104 keys. Control sticks react dumbly compares to computer mice. TVs have more limited screens compared to PCs and so on.

The problem with all this conforming and dumbing down, from a business perspective, is that there are plenty of companies producing shiny, simple, user-friendly games for consoles already. Imagine ArmA-III for Playstation 4. To make a viable product the graphics go up, the intricacy and depth goes down. Now even after conforming to the "console jungle" would ArmA-III compete favorably with Halo 5?

BIS is good at making military simulations that do what Halo and Quake and other less cliché titles can't do. The PC is the natural and friendly home to such titles. When was the last time someone made a home-brew addon or reskin to a console game? The console is a profitable but hostile home for game companies such as BIS. Consoles would strip BIS to a console-game manufacturer and that's not what they're good at.

[rocket 9]

Quote[/b] ]The line between consoles and PCs is diminishing rapidly.

I'd have to disagree there. Maybe the technology line is becoming the same, but the distribution methods and the production behind them is completely different. The console manufacturers have huge input into what is made, they take a massive cut, and they control the distribution even in a digitial distribution environment (XBLA and PS Store). There are stringent requirements that a console game must pass before the console manufacturer will release the game. Also, the developer must be approved for that platform. PC's don't have these same requirements... which brings me to...

Quote[/b] ]The revenue generated difference between a nominal PC title and a nominal console title is immense.

Agree (I think). PC titles are cheaper to produce because of said points above, but they don't make as much money because you don't sell as many.

Quote[/b] ]The natural shift of product when switching to consoles is to water-down, simplify, and glossify their products.

Thoroughly agree

Quote[/b] ]Consoles would strip BIS to a console-game manufacturer and that's not what they're good at.

I work at such a console game developer, and yes, its a very different approach from PC game development. But I can understand, as Placebo noted, that the developers at BI aren't necessarily big Military Simulation fans ... and even if they are, developers need variety! The fastest way to bleed staff is to keep doing the same thing again and again. They want something new and exciting.

While I would love to see more and more on the military simulation front, I think it would be fantastic to see some really new and completely different titles come from the studio. Game Dev companies need to grow and change, and its good to see that BI aren't affraid to do that.

Great interview hope we see more!

EDIT: I need to learn how to spell, apparently.

[ArMoGaDoN 0]

re: "platoon being broken down into squads and then fireteams".

Agreed that this would make a load of sense, just a single icon in your command bar that takes the place of the squad or fireteam by representing only it's leader.

The F11/F12 keys to drill-down and back up in the chain should be fairly simple too I reckon?

When I first read about the formLeader script function:

"Person= formLeader Unit;"  (NOT formationLeader function)

which: "Returns the formation leader of a given unit. This is often the same as the group leader, but not always, for example in cases when a unit is ordered to follow another unit. " (from Wiki)

I assumed wrongly that each red/blue/green team as assigned sub-group would already have done such sub-formations automatically - but was disappointed when it became apparent this was not so.

But could the existence of that script function mean that some of the groundwork and logic for support of sub-team formation leaders is _already_ lurking in the depths of the code that support this formLeader function command anyway?

IF it's partly there, then the updating of the command-bar at the bottom of the screen to make use of this would seem to be a minor issue at worst?

Dunno. Just a thought.

With such functions useable, then larger RTS-style applications/maps would be far simpler to create AND USE. At present, development of maps that really use ArmA to the full with AI are severely limited in what can be done. That's due to the AI dumbness re: obstacles, and the clunky command system. ArmA2 promises to address the AI dumbness with pathfinding by increasing their resolution dramatically, and with a dedi-server many AI could still be supported, but some of the AI control may need to be shifted back to the server from the client, possibly?

Bundle better AI (that can do as you order and expect) with a better command interface / structure and large-scale battles / RTS will be useable and FUN again.

My 2p worth.

[benreeper 0]

Why would BIS spend the time making an expansive game with great AI, at incredible expense, when no other developer does this. They should do like everyone else: make a shallow pretty game for a console. This console community is alot less damning than this one and they would make more money catering to them. Everyone here wants to buy the moon for 40 bucks (and will complain when they only make it to a lunar orbit) when a gamer with a PS3 just wants to look at the moon for $70.

Seems like a no-brainer to me.

--Ben

P.S.: Just waiting for the mis-quotes.

[frederf 0]

Quote[/b] ]I'd have to disagree there. Maybe the technology line is becoming the same, but the distribution methods and the production behind them is completely different. The console manufacturers have huge input into what is made, they take a massive cut, and they control the distribution even in a digitial distribution environment (XBLA and PS Store). There are stringent requirements that a console game must pass before the console manufacturer will release the game. Also, the developer must be approved for that platform. PC's don't have these same requirements... which brings me to...

When I say that PCs and Consoles are becoming closer, I mean look at the various PCs efforts to streamline production.

*DX10 has tighter guidelines for how to code game graphics and physics engine elements

*Microsoft Games For Windows program puts very tight constraints on features, compatibility, etc in order to achieve that certification.

*Deals with mega-corporations such as EA, UBi, ATi, nVidia, Microsoft, etc are heavily encouraging a lot of agreement between hardware and software developers.

-----

P.S. I apologize for going tangential on this thread's metaphorical posterior. The next little bit will be genuine on-Topic discussion.

-----

While it may not be in BIS's obvious, immediate interest to develop and polish a tiered command system, it does affect the long-term flexibility and appeal of the product. If OFP was played simply for the single player campaign and then put on a shelf, none of use would be hear discussing the future of BIS and OFP/ArmA.

However, I don't expect (and it may not even be prudent use of resources) for BIS to flesh out a tier-command system when they won't be using it for their new game content directly (for whatever semi-valid reasons). It doesn't make sense to create and perfect a feature that the company isn't going to use.

Instead I suggest what I've been suggesting all along: Give the community the code-hooks, scripting commands, and AI mod-ability enough to have half a chance of making it ourselves. The community's near limitless resources are perfect for experimentation in non-mainstream directions. Letting BIS provide support for the community of modders and then simply seeing which ideas are well-received sounds evil but is going to provide the best and most practical product development cycle.

It is the retardedness of the AI that prevents tiered command from really working, not any sort of newbie-confusing complexity. Tiered command is BY DESIGN simple to wrap your head around. There's a reason that no one in the US Army commands more than 3 other people generally. Unless BIS plans to make "Platoon Commander" missions for ArmAII, this level of command is not particularly useful. Perhaps a human could operate at the squad or team level and receive AI orders from platoon/company. On the other hand, tiered command would work brilliantly for making a challenging but real OPFOR which ArmA lacks.

Conclusion: My personal hope is that ArmAII puts substance and ease where ArmA had great, unfulfilled potential.

I heard mention about talking to civilians, flocking behavior, etc leads me to believe that a more rich, persistent, RPG-like environment will exist which is what I'm hoping for. ArmAII should be rolling film where ArmA was disjointed snapshots. Smoothness and consistency are what people immersed.

To make a mission that goes for more than 2-3 hours in ArmA you have to script the heck out of it. A series of missions in the same story are hard to make convincing as such.

[4 IN 1 0]

point is: why would i buy ARMAII if its not OFP/ARMA any more?

[Shadow NX 1]

Well Marek said somethign like they wont remove features so it doesnt sound like they plan to dumb it down, they only said they try make it more accessible to people by designing the camapign in a way where you only control a hand full of soldiers.

So whats the fuss all about?

[xxbbcc 6]

Well, if that's what they're doing and they also fix the bugs, then it might be a good game. It's quite understandable, though, that many here are concerned, seeing the state of ArmA as it is.

[MehMan 0]

It is the retardedness of the AI that prevents tiered command from really working, not any sort of newbie-confusing complexity. Tiered command is BY DESIGN simple to wrap your head around. There's a reason that no one in the US Army commands more than 3 other people generally. Unless BIS plans to make "Platoon Commander" missions for ArmAII, this level of command is not particularly useful. Perhaps a human could operate at the squad or team level and receive AI orders from platoon/company. On the other hand, tiered command would work brilliantly for making a challenging but real OPFOR which ArmA lacks.

Conclusion:  My personal hope is that ArmAII puts substance and ease where ArmA had great, unfulfilled potential.

I heard mention about talking to civilians, flocking behavior, etc leads me to believe that a more rich, persistent, RPG-like environment will exist which is what I'm hoping for. ArmAII should be rolling film where ArmA was disjointed snapshots. Smoothness and consistency are what people immersed.

Oh I'd love to see the ArmA AI use platoon level tactics. I mean a single platoon commander managing squads, flanking manvouers, using suppersive fire, use of mortars etc., that'd be such a great feature to have in ArmAII, even at squad level(the AI does flank, but that's where it ends) it'd be awsome.

But I'd give a toe to see the command system reworked.

[efefia 0]

Sorry but efefia does wildcatting. Calm down...

Consoles are only another economic option - in fact many developer/publisher do that - take a look  

I think that's a bit of a strong term, I simply gave my opinion, never stated any of it as factual... it's a forum, opinions are generally all you'll get to read

sheesh, go grab some air folks.

[frederf 0]

Well Marek said something like they wont remove features so it doesn't sound like they plan to dumb it down, they only said they try make it more accessible to people by designing the campaign in a way where you only control a hand full of soldiers.

So whats the fuss all about?

It sounds like ArmAII will have all of the features and potential of ArmA, to be sure. The fuss is about the fact that little improvement will be made to access that potential if BIS decides to make campaign and other play content that is dumbed down. Why reinvent the wheel when you're going to go down Easy St.?

[andersson 285]

The fuss is about the fact that little improvement will be made to access that potential if BIS decides to make campaign and other play content that is dumbed down.

Oh, I didnt read anything like that. They choosed a smaller group in the campaign to make it more accesible to more people. Why would that make the campaign dumbed down? And what "other play content" will be dumbed down?

I might have missed something..?

[Abbe 0]

Anyone noticed the lack of input from PvP players in this thread?

There could ofcourse be a huge save of recourses and money if MP is scrapped all together. SPvAI in small squads seems to be the bright future? What is the name of that again...oh, right, de-evolution...

/Abbe

[Maddmatt 1]

Anyone noticed the lack of input from PvP players in this thread?

What makes you think nobody here doesn't play PvP? I play both PvP and coop, I like them both.

MP will never be scrapped, sorry

[sluggCDN 0]

I completely agree - switching to console will kill the game completely. ArmA may run on console well, but for its type of gameplay and genre there is no audience in the console-minded teenage crowd. "Run-n-gun-flicker-n-shine" isn't ArmA's description. What BIS has to do with ArmA2 if, as it seems, ArmA1 is beyond salvation, is optimize the new game; not on words, but in practice.

Here is the thing if the game engine is optimized for ArmA2 and isn't just a straight conversion of OFP monster than switching to consoles for the sake of stable ingame performance won't even be a question.

The point of optimization brings me to another point - if the game engine isn't optimized all the efforts BIS is putting into creating an amazing detailed gameworld in ArmA1/2 will be totally lost upon the audience. We'll simply never be able to experience it ingame - looking at screenshots would be a more satisfying experience than looking at the in-game slideshow at 5 fps. All the beautiful special effects, all the detailed textures and 3D objects will simply be unseen by the larger crowd - they simple won't be able to bring the level of graphic settings high enough to see the game in all its glory.

There is something else I hope BIS is looking into and doing some serious work on - it's the character control / animation system. BIS, please get away from the closed loop animation model. ArmA is a realistic first person shooter where a player experiences the gameworld primarily through interaction with his/her character; therefore, if you make controlling the character frustrating you are not making yourself any favors. For those who don't understand what I mean - right now there is a lot of awkwardness in the way many character animation sequences transition from one to another. You cannot move till your character reloading animation is complete. You've got to use walls and trees for you character to not overrun an intended stop spot while sprinting. AI characters death animation is delayed till its current animation is complete - this particular one sometimes makes you wonder whether AI is still alive or it's just the old OFP "thing". Got me killed many times ingame when I kept on shooting into one guy thinking I missed instead of switching to another target that's already engaging me. ArmA animation system is as old as OFP and is absolutely outdated. It was used at the time in OFP because of technology/hardware limitations. But it's different times now - I believe BIS can do better. Stop animating rabbits and seagull flocks and give us properly animated & controllable human character models.

[benreeper 0]

You're correct, this is not the game that will go to a console. A "Run-n-gun-flicker-n-shine" game, as described, will be the "new" game.

I don't think anyone fully understands that situation. Instead of them spending the time and considerable expense to create the perfect simulation, that no one will buy and this community will pick apart for every little flaw, BIS will make a pretty shooter, like every other developer and actually make more money. That is the danger we face. I would definitely understand that move, if it happened.

-Ben

[Shadow NX 1]

Erm, some dont seem to have a idea how much money the development for a new game costs these days.

Quoted from a web article:

"...development costs should be in decline as game developers reach the technical limits of the platform. That’s not happening. “Research and development costs continue to go up,†said Richard Ow, a game analyst for the NPD Group. In 1996 a typical PlayStation game cost less than $1 million to make and sold for $49. Today, development costs for an Xbox or PlayStation 2 game run anywhere from $5 million to $7 million per title and sell for $49.99. And some game titles can cost upwards of $30 million. "

OK this is about console development but for a PC title the numbers should be similar if not sometimes higher if you count the extra costs for patching and stuff like tools for the community.

Especially for smaller developers something like a console version is more or less the only way to be able to get the costs back in and hopefully earn some money.

Why would so many developers with a longer history than BIS disapear over the last years, they either had to give up or were buyed by the bigger companys like EA.

So if a console game is what is needed to develop a good ArmAII then be it, just dont dumb it down and listen to the community BEFORE and not after the release.

[Zadoff1880 0]

I completely agree - switching to console will kill the game completely.

So do I, remember what happened with Oblivion?

And how many players were upset becasue when compared to Morrowind or even Daggerfall that new game just felt too consolish...

[NeMeSiS 11]

I completely agree - switching to console will kill the game completely.

So do I, remember what happened with Oblivion?

Remember OFPE?

BI showed that it can be done, and they already said they will do it again.

[colkurtz 0]

BIS need to sell games to survive and they'd be mad not to target the potential millions on console gamers.

At the same time they have a legacy of of a great game (OFP) which has got an established community hoping for increasing realistic and immersive titles which goes against the whole concept easily accessible games for consoles.

With their limited resources what does BIS do?

The answer is compromise which is what I think ARMA2 is all about.

What I'm hoping for is a future PC expansion to ARMA2 which will offer the community the platoon command structure, guided missiles, and increased infantry capabilities...etc,  if these cannot be included in the intitial ARMA2 release for obvious reasons.

But the same time I would like to ARMA2 to offer more of what it should be capable of offering and not suffer from the same restrictions, lack of features and bugs that ARMA has had.

What I don't want ARMA2 to be, is 'ARMA' with a couple of extra features, as that would be rather disappointing.