The most important features ARMA 2 needs to have

[Daniel 0]

Quote[/b] ]starting with very simple things like realistic rates of fire for example. it's really

easy to find the cyclic rates of weapons on the internet and "fix" them in the config

and it puzzles me why BIS wasn't able to get them right in the first place...

stuff like Maddmatt's "Effects Mod" makes a world of a difference. realistic

tracer ammo, BOTH miniguns on a chopper actually firing, soldiers shouting

during combat...little things like that.

Totally agree. If BIS don't pick up on things like this they're shooting themselves in the foot.

The most important thing for me is more "human" AI from the start. Patches can increase stability, mods can add pretty much everything else. But AI seems the hardest thing to alter in a significant way.

As others have said, we need AI that shouts, runs for cover, reacts to fire, and is really aggresive.

[Ezekiel 0]

3. An opportunity of full view of an interior of vehicles, ie the opportunity to review horizontally at 360 degrees., And vertically - not less than 90 degrees. (as in OFP, not as in ArmA)

There's a reason for this -

ArmA is 'special' in one very particular way that the developers always cite - it is a 'true' simulator. The 1st person view is TIED to the animations. The angle of scopes actually have to be carefully zeroed because the eye is looking out the end of the scope and the bullet is coming out of the end of the gun. When you look left, people will see you turn your head an equal amount in game, and its not a case of 'you see the head move because the player moved his view left' - it's actually 'the view of the player moved because the head moved left'. It's actually the same result either way but the principal is different - in most games the animations work for the game, in ArmA the game works for the animations. This is the main reason for all the screwiness with movement too.. The way BIS want to do animations, they have to make a LOT of complicated transitions to pull off traditional style first person shooter controls, but in ArmA they didn't put the effort in.

Anyway the point is that if you wanted to be able to look directly behind you in a vehicle you would have to be able to physically turn the model of your soldier 180 degrees round, which would look incredibly disturbing when your pilot/driver does it while you're sitting behind them.

BIS could make a workaround by detaching the camera view from the crew model when in vehicles. Thus, you wouldn't be able to see when your co-pilot moves their head (which is a cute feature Ill admit) because they'd be in a 'fixed' animation loop (ala people in the back of trucks, apparently this has been 'fixed' in the most recent patch), but you WOULD be able to look all around as is realistic without a complicated animation system (think aiming the gun out of the window in GTA4 - point it in all directions out of a car and look at the way the arm moves as the aim changes).

[gameworx 0]

1. Fluid motion. I know it has been discussed to death but I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be taken care of. ALL FPS games have natural flow regarding the animations and movement (Remember QuakeII? It moved nice and smooth and it is a ten year old game). Arma still feels "wooden" and cumbersome.

/signed

I totally agree! Moving in ofp/ arma feels like pushing a shop-window dummy over a frozen sea. I hate that! This is the main reason for me to think about buying arma2 or not.

The perfect Arma2 would be Arma1 that feels like CoD4. I don't mean the gameplay or the Action but the feeling when moving in a firefight.

The animation in Arma looks great but the engine (play animation, wait for next action, play animation ...) kills the gameflow and the players fun.

[Vulture2k1 0]

agreed .. CoD4 "feels" just perfect and very controlable.. even games i played for very long time now seem to be complicated and unpractical.. like DoD:Source..

the grenade tossing with 1 single key.. the movement.. all great.. take a look at that

[-Total- 0]

Community Fixes and Add-ons that have become staples in OFP and ArmA.

Don't make them create them for a third time.

Things such as THIS STICKY THREAD from the ArmA forums

[Voidworm 0]

In my opinion ArmA is basically the pinnacle of military games in terms of tactics, scope, and amount of content. However, there is one major feature that I think Bohemia should address in ArmA 2; guns.

I'd like to see ArmA 2 do for guns what Operation Flashpoint did for large scale military tactics/gameplay. Of course I'd like to see aesthetic improvements in gunplay but what I'm really talking about is ArmA 2 having the most in-depth gun customization/creation ever seen in a videogame.

I know it's a lofty and mostly unrealistic demand, but I'd like to see a huge list of gun parts and accessories from which a player could create and modify a gun to fit their personal taste and playstyle.

[M.Andersson(SWE) 4]

Has anyone mentioned "definitions"?

Im talking about subject definitions, like House, Road,

Wall, Tree and on and on...

Espesially for AI that would be a major improvment, if

they knew what is what...

If they knew what a road is, then they maight actually USE

the road, or a bridge, water (STAY AWAY FROM THE WATER).

Wall (Do not ram walls or trees with vehicles)..

If they knew, Human/Player might be able to issue orders like

"STAY ON THE ROAD" or "STAY OFF THE ROADS"..

I still want BI to put some REAL HARD WORK on the

AI engine...

[Duke49th 1]

Another Publisher for Germany! Morphicon su***

[baddo 0]

Has anyone mentioned "definitions"?

Im talking about subject definitions, like House, Road,

Wall, Tree and on and on...

Espesially for AI that would be a major improvment, if

they knew what is what...

If they knew what a road is, then they maight actually USE

the road, or a bridge, water (STAY AWAY FROM THE WATER).

Wall (Do not ram walls or trees with vehicles)..

If they knew, Human/Player might be able to issue orders like

"STAY ON THE ROAD" or "STAY OFF THE ROADS"..

I still want BI to put some REAL HARD WORK on the

AI engine...

I'm sure that the ArmA AI knows what is a road. It doesn't take much to notice that they do.

Maybe you are talking about something else, then, actually.

[-)rStrangelove 0]

Most important feature i'd like to see is

DISAPPEARING TREES

I'm talking about trees that are run over by a large vehicle or are hit by a large explosion.

In ArmA they fall to the ground and totally block the line of sight of human players. However, the AI can see & shoot through them.

This totally freaks me out everytime i die. (happens on Evo a lot)

[baddo 0]

)rStrangelove @ July 05 2008,14:04)]Most important feature i'd like to see is

DISAPPEARING TREES

I'm talking about trees that are run over by a large vehicle or are hit by a large explosion.

In ArmA they fall to the ground and totally block the line of sight of human players. However, the AI can see & shoot through them.

This totally freaks me out everytime i die. (happens on Evo a lot)

I'd like that to be instead "fallen trees still act like physical bodies and like visuality blocking bodies".

Wouldn't it be better if you could use a fallen tree to your advantage. And same for the enemy. That would be closer to how it is in this real life of ours, and people wouldn't be negatively surprised about it then.

[4 IN 1 0]

ai, together with the fine tune on the command engine is what i want to see the most

BUT

BI drop the idea and go for a dump down verson of the system

animation engine improvement, which allow reload while moving(with a much longer time for balance sakes) and smoother  movement will also be a welcome

then, again,

i have no clue about how they will make things better

finally, damage model, vehicales control and physics engine

i am sick of those flying tanks, keep-draging-your-mouse-to turn-around-a-conner drivings, blacken damaged parts and stuff

[KorpeN 0]

I want physics,realistic functions of tanks,aircrafts,choppers.I want to see thermal cams in tanks etc etc.Or these is only for VBS?Never mind i ll wait for OFP2

[4 IN 1 0]

or maybe, upon the all the suggestions / improvements / etc. , its the developers attitude towards the game that have to be fine tune?

i mean, yes i know how hard work it is to put something thats new into the engine and yes we know not all things are needed to put into the game but some of those things we talk about that BI thinks no need might acturally make life easier in game without losting realism factor, makes the target players happier and sell the game better

[Guest]

Sahrani provided by BIS (not the public) put into Arma2's initial release, even if the map is not used by their missions, it will allow missions to be ported over from Arma1.

Allow unit names from Arma1 to be used in Arma2, let them represent the new units provided, this will further simplify missions ported over.

[Lepardi 0]

For the sake of gameplay we need proper input. ArmA sucks now because of badly designed input, there's a horrible mouse lag which kills the gameplay.

If this still occurs in ArmA 2, I can't be bothered to buy myself a copy of it.

[SaBrE_UK 0]

Quote[/b] ] there's a horrible mouse lag which kills the gameplay.

Negative.

[Guest]

What sells a game -

2 Primary things come to mind (amongst the million other things)

1 - great graphics, freedom, etc - what the game engine provides

2 - great missions

What good is a game, that you buy that has all kinds of amazing stuff, but the missions are just worthless..

Its much worse..

The missions shouldnt just be 'ok', they shouldnt just be 'pretty good', many of them should be awesome, and most should be at least 'very good' - and immersive

Ofp did it, I played thru the Sp campaigns quite a few times, the overall content was great, voice acting, the true 'feel' was there in the missions, it was great.

Sell a game that has boring missions, bad content in them, many people will try it out, and say 'well this suks' - unless they are the hardcore'rs that frequent the forums here, and dont mind waiting months for the public to make something, of which might be truly unique and great, but normally does not exceed what a gaming company can produce in overall quality (Imo, thats a given).

It might seem odd, but I think one of the most important things for Arma2 is, initially anyhow, the campaign itself. Really, everything kind of 'sprouts' from there, the other single Sp missions, and the Mp missions too.

I think the campaign in Arma2 needs to be done it great quality in every aspect, just like it was done in Ofp was back when.

Then move on to adding in a few single missions, make some nice Mp stuff - but again, I think the Campaign itself is a huge seller, and its likely the first thing any new owner of the game will get attached to quickly, if its done well.

I'll add here too, that the word 'Campaign' doesent neccessarily have to be 30 missions, there is certainly the ability to make a mission that goes on for days that has seemingly never ending new content that comes up, and is immersive - anyone remember 'Abandoned Armies' for Ofp - Anything is possible, but I think the mission quality needs to be there for the main Sp content provided by the game. More I think about it, more I think its almost mandatory imo.

Edit/

An example of what single player content can do for a game, and for a game that provides only one mission to play, thats it.

Check out the Oblivion official forums

Its one mission, thats it, ya theres tons of mission within that mission, but essentially it is one continuous, single player mission, and that is the entire games mission content!

There is like a ridiculous volume of people on the forums every time I go there, for a game thats been out for an extremely long time. Suppose it was all glitz and glamor, but the mission content was bad, I think the game would have died years ago.

[Lepardi 0]

Quote[/b] ] there's a horrible mouse lag which kills the gameplay.

Negative.

Don't say there isn't, because there is.

[klamacz 447]

most important features for me:

Render To Texture

used for: mfds in choppers, camera in ka-50, camera in stryker, actual 3d sniper rifle scope etc

Possibility to change more visual aspects of screen

like color replace, postprocessing shaders etc

used for: all possible sensors like IR, Thermal, all needed visual effects like blackouts, burnouts, shaky screens and more

[Maddmatt 1]

Quote[/b] ] there's a horrible mouse lag which kills the gameplay.

Negative.

Don't say there isn't, because there is.

There isn't, if you configure things appropriately.

Hint: Render frames ahead (Nvidia)/Flip queue size (ATI)

Turning off Vsync can help too.

[Farks 0]

<span style='font-size:27pt;line-height:100%'>3D EDITOR!!</span>

[Lepardi 0]

Quote[/b] ] there's a horrible mouse lag which kills the gameplay.

Negative.

Don't say there isn't, because there is.

There isn't, if you configure things appropriately.

Hint: Render frames ahead (Nvidia)/Flip queue size (ATI)

Turning off Vsync can help too.

Like I wouldn't have tried those. There's still a huge mouselag in lower FPS situations. ArmA needs 100fps constant for a good experience, but that's impossible. Other games even 40fps is fine with zero mouselag. And I think that is a huge problem if it will be in ArmA 2 too.

[Maddmatt 1]

...

Like I wouldn't have tried those. There's still a huge mouselag in lower FPS situations. ArmA needs 100fps constant for a good experience, but that's impossible...

I don't have that problem. Smooth FPS for me makes the mouse movement react just fine.

I don't even get near 100FPS, and it is still smooth for me.

25+ FPS is enough for decent mouse movement for me in just about any game, including ArmA 

[SHWiiNG 0]

i cant help that think Graphics is the Least of BIS's problems.

I don't care about what you guys say. i play Red orchestra, sure the graphics are not exactly top notch but i enjoy playing it purely because it has Atmosphere, gameplay, sounds, features, Physics.

So i can say that graphics comes last after all those featured above