Interview with Ondrej Spanel ( Suma )

[suma 8]

And that you don't listen to the community-made suggestions for ARMA2 because they came TO LATE is the biggest joke of all, i mean thats all so ridiculous.

This is not what I said, as others already explained. All I said is the game feature set is closed now and it is too late for any significant suggestions now. Off course the feature set considers what community suggested.

I will not dignify the rest of your post by an answer.

[bella1 0]

Hey. I diden`t hear the intrview with Suma. Did he mention the destuctibal building`s system?

[CzingerX 0]

I thought is was a good interview. I can't wait for the release of ARMA 2. People who have problems with this game should code there own, and see how many bugs they can squash. Fact is pretty much all PC games nowadays have a ton of bugs regardless of all the patch's released for them. Things are more complicated now, no matter how good you are.

[bravo 6 0]

In general i enjoyed the interview from both parts.

Yes the 1st part was more relaxing and fun.. but the last part was more serious and to be honest it was the part that alot of people were expecting for.

I have the feeling that people who know and deal with military equipment and stuff, kinda feel impotent helping this wonderfull game because as it was mentioned there are some things (equipment) that don't really match with the reality.

Of course BIS try to approach realism as possible by searching information in the net like Suma said in the interview but still there are alot of simple things that could be worked alittle.

I just think there are capable persons (users in this forum) that know specific information about the military equipment in general and BIS could accept and use their precious help in order to improve those things that make the game more realistic.

So my point is: Why BIS don't accept/use some of the great work that were/is made by the community to improve in terms of realism?

There are things that are made by the community that could be used for ArmA 1.11 or ArmA2, i mean scripts.. models.. etc.

[r2101 0]

1st... jerry h. & suma thanks for doing the interview

kinda funny... i tuned in to the stream and was expecting some kind of "marketing bubble"... and was completely surprised as i listenend.

at first it was a little strange (for the lack of a better word, probably because i still waited for the marketing/promoting aspect)... but then i thought... well that is really cool! a completely non-marketing/pr related interview.

dunno if i ever heard something similar from a software company. but i thought it was quite a change

nice personal interview... without all the usual buzz-word phrases and uber-hype...

p.s. should have sent in a question myself... when to expect fairytale 2?

[.kju 3240]

Quote[/b] ]So my point is: Why BIS don't accept/use some of the great work that were/is made by the community to improve in terms of realism?

There are things that are made by the community that could be used for ArmA 1.11 or ArmA2, i mean scripts.. models.. etc.

Time is limited. You cannot just take context X in the game.

The time required to separate good form bad, review, test,

optimize, sort permissions etc is way too much hassle.

Most times it would far more efficient from them to make things

own their own. However you neglect that BI has a strategy to

follow and money to earn.

Even more. What is the point to have realism improved with little

things or in other words 'approved' / added to the core game by

BI. Realism is by far not the only or even most / more important

goal for the company.

Sorry for offtopic.

[Thunderbird 0]

There was a thread related to the theme of "little additions that increases the game's feeling and immersion" and it's sure that such details, which are mainly hard-coded would bring a lot for the incoming engine.

Just look at 'Red Orchestra' and notice how the game is enjoyable, even with a limited engine.

This is mainly due to the attention brought by its developpers to some aspects that were in most of games, rather ignored (Weapon deployment system, Ballistic values... etc).

As someone stated, most of these little features are really doable (As proven with OFP [sLX, ECP, COC...]) and a large part of them don't necessary require the same efforts and strivings than for building 'Complex Simulations of Models' or for developping a decent 'Human Animations System' since several features in question are mainly relevant to .cpp (Ballistic values, AI Range values, Recoil values...).

Regards,

TB

[sickboy 13]

@Thunderbird; Please do not take this message personally, im trying to use your post/situation as example

I believe anyone who isn't a game developer, even if he's another kind of developer, has no real clue what he is talking about. Myself included.

I believe a game must reach a commercial success. At least, I think we may assume that this is what Developers want

But how this is achieved is imo a mystery to everyone except the game developer themselves.

I believe that many things in ArmA have been setup the way they are, for a reason. The reason could be various:

[*] Programming

[*] Time constraints

[*] Agreements

[*] Own Vision

[*] Balance

[*] Choices made long time in dev process; not able to revert without major reprecusians

The list is prolly endless.

What if the makers don't aim for total realism (altough you expect it)? What if the makers have another opinion, or believe in something else?

You believe the ballistics could be done better, better is in your opinion more realistic.

What if better for BI, or 90% of customers, would be unrealistic?

We all have our vision on what ArmA is, what it should be, and what it could be. That's free for everyone to choose of course. But nobody of us knows the real reasons WHY some things are in ArmA(/OFP/ArmA2) as they are.

I also believe that we can not really make any conclussions on what would be better or worse, except only for ourselves and others that think alike.

But how many ppl think alike? How big percentage is that on the grande totalle of sales on the product?

BI Forums or maybe even incl. all Communities and sites out there might not even make up for 50% of the Customer base. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't; who knows

IMO it's important that the game is modable to everyone's taste. That's the power of the whole series anyway.

Developers can not please everyone. When they please _this_ group, they probably displease _that_ group.

(We all know it, because we experience it every single day here )

e.g:You feel the ballistics are unrealstic? You feel that that is a reason why you and possibly others are not enjoying the game fully; Change it.

Thats the BI Games Spirit imo Yes I know, "If they would already do this by default, then everyone could enjoy the game more!".

Wrong. Again, you and others that think and believe alike will agree to that. Possible thousands of others might not.

[wamingo 1]

I think the interview lost perspective of who was being interviewed? Take it as constructive criticism  ..

I think it's safe to assume no one really knew what was proper to ask. The questions would probably not have been so broad if we'd known that lead-programmer isn't equal to know-it-all - which many probably expected (well I'm guilty anyway).

Would be nice if we can get a little bit of headsup on what type of work they do and what to expect so we can make questions accordingly.

Hey. I didn`t hear the interview with Suma. Did he mention the destructible building`s system?

It was mentioned briefly in a question, but not really talked about. He said he didn't know whether it would be only some buildings that could be destroyed or not.

[.kju 3240]

Fact is ArmA2 needs to be commercially successful, like every other game.

Therefore it needs to be fun.

It is true that immersion play a very huge part of that.

The word realism should really banned altogether in this forum.

People use it for any kind of suggestion and wish. Or even more

their vision of the game. You really have to ask yourself, how

you can dare to be so selfish to give yourself the right to

request anything here - not targeted to you TB , all the other

boys living in a never-never land...

This game needs to be smooth, enjoyable, believable, easy to

get into, easy to learn, hard to master, good story telling.

This inherits all the little details of course.

This has nothing to do with the so called 'realism' though.

Spot on SB.

[Wolfrug 0]

Edit: Q got there before me.

...

Why does everyone seem to think realism is the end-all, know-all, supreme power that rules this game? This game! There are few things in the world that are less fun, entertaining and all-around worth using your time on than "realistic" or "simulated" combat, for pete's sake. (And I dare anyone here to come tell me it's "fun" being at war.)

ArmA is primarily a game, and as a game it's designed to be fun and entertaining, which in some cases will mean it's realistic, but in the large majority of cases means it's not. Hell - half the time to make a mission in ArmA entertaining, you have to go against the constraints of reality. I won't pretend I know much about the reality of warfare, but I dare say a mission which involves standing guard in the middle of the night for two hours listening to owls hoot just isn't going to be very popular. Furthermore, most of the things people seem to be clamoring for in the realism department are either (as Sickboy notes) : Doable by yourself by modding, or : doesn't add anything at all to the game for anyone except people who get excited over having all the completely utterly useless gauges inside a tank work properly.

Just my 0.02 €. As Suma says...it's just a game, people. Chill out. Leave the "realism" to people who actually enjoy killing people.

Kind regards,

Wolfrug

[Thunderbird 0]

Quote[/b] ]You believe the ballistics could be done better, better is in your opinion more realistic.

What if better for BI, or 90% of the BI Community, would be unrealistic?

True, my statement is not relative to the whole community's opinion and can't be representative of everyone's interpretation at all but basing myself on what I have seen so far in these boards, you can't deny that 'Realism' represents a major factor to take into consideration as it is used to make the players' actions seem more life-like, particularly for a game using such an engine.

And indeed, things are just not as simple as they may sound, but what makes BIS different from the rest of gaming-compagnies is that they somewhat have the complete freedom to decide whatever they want for the development of their games, evidently depending on several issues (Time, ressources, wanted objectives...).

Regards,

TB

[sickboy 13]

@Thunderbird:

I edited the text part you quoted, as I was wrong to say "BI Community", as I claimed earlier that I believe the BI Community doesn't make up for a large part of their customer base

So even when you hear it a lot here in the forums, or on other ArmA/OFP forums, it still might not be accurate, and totally useless numbrs.

I get what you're saying about the freedom though.

Quote[/b] ]you can't deny that 'Realism' represents a major factor to take into consideration as it is used to make the players' actions seem more life-like

Well, I disagree and do deny it

Realism, for you and even me, is attractive. Still there are hundreds of (sci)fictional games out there; Some prefer that over realism

Also as I believe others tried to point out, Realism is a big word. Realism can go from ballistics to visuals, to audibles, to possibilities within the gameworld, to accurate modelling of vehicles, soldiers, leafs, and so on.

Maybe the more proper word is "Simulation".

There's people that prefer simulation (real), and those that prefer gaming ((partionally) fictional).

[Thunderbird 0]

Quote[/b] ]Realism, for you and even me, is attractive. Still there are hundreds of (sci)fictional games out there; Some prefer that over realism

Definitely, this is just a matter of taste, but I was talking of these boards as I'm sure if you set up a "poll" to collect people's opinions, I'm confident that a large part of this community would vote for a an approach based on 'Realism' or 'Realistic Simulation' (I hope you don't misunderstand what I'm trying to point out) - Of course, a moderate 'realism' to keep the "fun" factor to a certain degree.

It's clear that 'Realism' is a big word to define what's being aimed for, but I just can't find a better word to express what I'm trying to describe.

Regards,

TB

[Balschoiw 0]

I´m with TB here. BIS is actively promoting and advertising Arma and it´s expansion as:

"a first person tactical military shooter with large elements of realism and simulation"

"Freedom of action melted with total realism makes this addon grave testament of it's own."

Both quotes are from the BI studio page.

They advertise with realism , so I guess everyone who actually buys the products knows that and wants realism. That´s what they especially highlight:

"If you’re tired of the unrealistic nature inherent in titles such as "Battlefield 2" or the "Call of Duty" series and crave something more authentic, Armed Assault just may be what you’ve been waiting for. Put simply, you just won’t find anything in the simulation realm comparable to this addictive game."

So on the paper it seems that realism is indeed a big chunk of Arma, while in reality it is less realistic than OFP, keeping in mind that a lot of features do not really work, have been disregarded or are simply missing or not working.

There seem to be easy fixes for some aspects and I really can´t understand why BIS doesn´t implement some of them while they don´t hesitate to deliver new options that are imo only a side-product of developing Arma2, like the VON - feature that came with the patch, while crucial bugs like pathfinding do not get any real attention at all (probably because there will be a completely new system for Arma2).

I for myself am not very confident that Arma2 will root back to the quality we were used to with 1.96 OFP.

As long as BIS doesn´t acknowledge that Arma still has huge deficits and probably can´t really be fixed, I don´t see how a follow-up should be ok that is working with the same core that is already causing huge problems with Arma. There is little magic in programming and things don´t fix themselves over night just because you create a new shiny dress for them.

I´m always open for surprises, but for now I´m not hanging my hopes high anymore.

[Wolfrug 0]

As much as we're sidetracking the original discussion here, I can't help but take the bait:

Quote[/b] ]So on the paper it seems that realism is indeed a big chunk of Arma, while in reality it is less realistic than OFP, keeping in mind that a lot of features do not really work, have been disregarded or are simply missing or not working.

What? Point out a -single- aspect of OFP 1.96 that's even remotely more "realistic" than anything that was in ArmA from 1.0. There are zero features of OFP that have been removed from ArmA as far as I'm aware. About the only thing I can imagine you might be talking about is a) the amount of vehicles (such as presence of T-80 tank) or b) the recoil (which is ridiculously non-existant to the level that every single mod hence has changed it, and besides it can be modded).

Furthermore:

What you quote from the page is entirely true! There is no other game on the market that can bring you the same level of realism as ArmA or OFP. In fact, the gap is so humongous that in all other games fans need to create user-made mods (such as Project Reality or Insurgency or Red Orchestra) to get even close. And none of the ones I've played so far have actually gotten close in terms of pure scale, gameplay or features. They're mods: they change stuff, but they're still based on the same basic engine.

And you crazies want to make ArmA -even- more realistic? ArmA -is- toted as the most realistic "simulator" out there, and I don't think anyone can deny that. I for one think ArmA is teethering on the edge of too realistic already, and that it could do well from a nice big dose of FUN, UNREALISTIC GAMEPLAY.

How about everyone stops whining about more "realistic" features, and start making missions and addons and scripts that promote -fun- and -gameplay- instead? I'm here for the realism factor as well, but I'm definitely not here for the "simulation" factor. Realism !=fun. And I have a feeling that's what BIS wants as well: a game, not a bloody simulator. If you desperately need that simulator, go buy VBS 2.

So, gameplay enhancements, anyone?

Kind regards,

Wolfrug

[NeMeSiS 11]

I for one think ArmA is teethering on the edge of too realistic already, and that it could do well from a nice big dose of FUN, UNREALISTIC GAMEPLAY.

When i feel like having some uncomplicated fun i just play SOF2/CoD/Whatever, there are dozens of games with 'fun, unrealistic gameplay' out there already, and those games are very good at their purpose, there is absolutely no point in converting ArmA('s engine) into something it wasn't ment for.

[MehMan 0]

While ArmA is realistic it still lacks a couple of things, like good armour simulation(I don't mean real tanks, I mean actual armour distribution), some more immersion factor, anims for each gun(kinda kills immersion to see a guy hold every gun the same, and every rocket launcher the same), non deployable weapons, etc. It's mostly cosmetics what I'm asking for and some more realistic armour. I've got the thing planned in my head but still haven't written it down.

But by and large ArmA and OFP are the most realistic games that offer combined warfare and an incredibly open world. I have yet to see a game like this. That's the thing I love with ArmA, the immense freedom.

[igor drukov 0]

Thanks a lot for the interview, Jerry and Suma. Thank you very very much.

On a side-note, I just want to say that IMHO, the games BIS and Suma have designed so far provide unrivalled and priceless FREEDOM. I'll never cease to bow to that, and hope they'll keep doing so in the future.

[EDIT]: more than dubious syntax.

[Dallas 9]

Some focus on what Suma didn't say, rather than what was said.

The format of the interview with written and recorded questions, worked out much better than I had expected or feared. Already in advance the questions posed in this thread, set an accusing tone. But these accusations where confronted with a second opinion, Suma's.

What I got from the interview is that ArmA may personally 'just' be a vehicle for Suma to work with a multifaceted virtual enviroment. However this 'just' makes all the difference in the world. It's exactly what makes BIS games so different from other games. Suma says he's more interested in programming than military stuff in general. Their games are three dimensional in every sense of the word. Therefore their AI must use intelligent situational and enviromental awareness, while other games appear to use zone specific triggers spawning one only event.

Suma's area of interest is the essence of OFP's and ArmA's appeal to many. BIS offers so much more than throwing a flash-bang or shooting a weapon. It offers virtual time and space. ArmA is more than mere combat, don't limit yourself.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Wolfkrug someone could say if you like more fun gameplay go buy one of those dozen FPS Shooters. It's nice + easy = fun to be a superhero in world of big and great effects.

OFP and ArmA are a bit different. Did you play mission more than once or twice? I like the open areas more than closed with transparent/painted walls in FPS-CQC.

ArmA is a game - yes, but imho it should stay different to others.

This interview points us little bit more behind the scene and its better than some of those marketing "developers-interview-vids" from bigger companies. Thank you and for next entry in developers blog.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]What? Point out a -single- aspect of OFP 1.96 that's even remotely more "realistic" than anything that was in ArmA from 1.0. There are zero features of OFP that have been removed from ArmA as far as I'm aware.

Mmkay:

tank interiors

moveable gunsights for Helos

ability to set precise routes for AI

ability of AI to drive and fly what they are sitting in (compare an OFP helo pilot and an Arma one)

watch AI, they only use the middle of the road...no matter what

Try to set up a patrol within a town in Arma. Do the same in OFP. See the difference ?

Realism comes with a sound set of features and options and components. Remove those features, options or components

and you have less realism.

[Wolfrug 0]

Quote[/b] ]tank interiors

moveable gunsights for Helos

ability to set precise routes for AI

ability of AI to drive and fly what they are sitting in (compare an OFP helo pilot and an Arma one)

watch AI, they only use the middle of the road...no matter what

Try to set up a patrol within a town in Arma. Do the same in OFP. See the difference ?

Tank interiors as a feature hasn't been removed, it's merely not been modelled. There are addon tanks out there that use interiors presently. Besides, they were mostly just a minor, non-working aesthetic detail.

Movable helicopter sights? Never even noticed this in OFP, but I'm sure you're right.

Route precision for AI is no different.

Capability for the AI to fly and drive is no different. (IMHO it's better, but then again the road network in ArmA is often more complicated, with more houses, vegetation and other sundry objects to navigate)

AI middle of the road: Point taken, but I've never really had this problem. While in combat mode, the AI will run wherever, much like OFP. The UPS script basically depends on the AIs ability to walk in the middle of the road.

Quote[/b] ]Wolfkrug someone could say if you like more fun gameplay go buy one of those dozen FPS Shooters. It's nice + easy = fun to be a superhero in world of big and great effects.

OFP and ArmA are a bit different. Did you play mission more than once or twice? I like the open areas more than closed with transparent/painted walls in FPS-CQC.

ArmA is a game - yes, but imho it should stay different to others.

I find this slightly insulting, but never mind. Did you ever stop to consider that "fun gameplay" might be exactly what I get out of ArmA, and that, just maybe, I have a good reason to play it? This is the, as we say in finnish, "asennevamma" (basically "attitude problem") of large parts of the community: the strict demarcation drawn between everyone else and us, as if there isn't a single game out there that has something to teach ArmA in terms of fun, entertainment and pure ol' gameyness. As if the sole purpose of ArmA/OFP is to provide you with some kind of twisted simulated war-reality where you can play out your scenarios. As Col.Faulkner says all the time: "It's a toy soldier game", not a simulator.

And yes, I've played and created plenty of missions, thank you, since 2001 when I joined these here forums.

Let me make this entirely clear: I love ArmA, its current gameplay, its current possibilities, and, above all, as other posters have said, its freedom. To blindly strive for utter and complete "realism" is not only a pipedream, it's every bit as limiting as setting up "transparent/painted walls" and having people run around in a little corridor playing superhero.

But anyway, before I turn this into another wordy argument, you can just go and read my massively wordy post over at OFPEC and continue the discussion there.

I'll just butt out of the conversation now, I think. If anyone does want to continue it, feel free to go to the thread linked to above.

At Jerry & co: sorry for derailing this thing! I'll be nice now.

Regards,

Wolfrug

[baddo 0]

Let me say one thing Balschoiw there is not much intelligence involved if a unit follows a precise route set by you.

What I'm saying is if you have had problems with not having enough control over the AI units in ArmA, how well does it correlate to real-life? Have you tried to control real-life soldiers precisely? Can you control exactly where they walk? Well you can say to your soldiers: don't go behind that building but instead walk the other way. But even then your men will occasionally walk where they want and go to the wrong side of the building, because they have their "own will" even if you as a commander try to suppress it.

It can definitely be argued that having some "own will" in the AI brain can be a deliberately chosen feature and not a "bug" or a "problem". It can be a problem indeed for you, if your scenario demands more precise control, but it has nothing to do with AI then at that point, I think. It would be more like controlling a robot then wouldn't it.

Anyway, it's a subject for another discussion.

[mr burns 131]

Let me say one thing Balschoiw there is not much intelligence involved if a unit follows a precise route set by you.

I think he was referring to the waypoint precision.

In OFP a unit ordered to "go to bush 12´o´clock" would more or less go exactly where you wanted him to, plus/minus 1-2 meters.

In ArmA that unit would end up standing about 10 meters away from said objects - very bad when you wanted him to get behind cover for example..