Not very encouraging news about ArmedA 2

[BeerHunter 0]

Listing of games being presented at the upcoming E3

E3 Games Listed so far

Note OFP2-Dragon rising is listed but nothing about ArmedA 2.

Guess this doesn't mean it wont be there as they are still taking entries , maybe BI doesn;t think showing up is worth the effort..maybe OFP2 will consist of nothing more than a few screen shots and a video..but still..

[froggyluv 2130]

Hmmm... strange but maybe putting BIS and The Codies in the same building could get ugly. I'd put my few monies on the Czechs though

[rowdied 44]

I don't see 2k sports or Take2 interactive either.

[stakex 0]

If I recall correctly, BIS was not at E3 last year either. Since it has been drasticlly downsized, and is now invite only... it is possible BIS is not invited or has choosen not to partake. I notice several other, smaller, dev studios that are not on the exhibitor list as well. That dosn't mean BIS won't show us some info or news durring the time period of E3. And if Atari is going to publish ArmA2 (bad mistake for BIS if so), then they might show it seeing as they are attending...

And yes, Take-Two is on the official exib list... IGN's list just lists confirmed games that are going to be shown.

[Longjocks 0]

Hmmm... strange but maybe putting BIS and The Codies in the same building could get ugly. I'd put my few monies on the Czechs though  

Yeah, all sorts of chaos might ensue. It might even escalate to a point where BIS and Codies employees pass each other in a hall and politely smile and say hello. Anarchy follows and the world as we know it ends.

[shinRaiden 0]

Hmmm... strange but maybe putting BIS and The Codies in the same building could get ugly. I'd put my few monies on the Czechs though

Yeah, all sorts of chaos might ensue. It might even escalate to a point where BIS and Codies employees pass each other in a hall and politely smile and say hello. Anarchy follows and the world as we know it ends.

What goes on at IITSEC, stays at IITSEC

[-Total- 0]

Hopefully ArmA2 will make it.

Read something on OFP2 that has me worried though...

Quote[/b] ]When asked if Codemasters' in-house-developed sequel will be as brutally hard as its Bohemia predecessor - "We're really trying to be true to the original form. I don't think it will be as hard, but it will be a sim. We think it's a flagship property."

It will be released for PC and Console. Hoping the "not as hard" doesn't refer to the fact that the gmaeplay is being dumbed down in order to optimize it for console play.

No game released on PC should have that happen. ArmA2 included.

[Pulverizer 1]

It will be released for PC and Console. Hoping the "not as hard" doesn't refer to the fact that the gmaeplay is being dumbed down in order to optimize it for console play.

No game released on PC should have that happen. ArmA2 included.

Hopefully it refers to the lack of stupid-hard rambo missions (ie, the avarage ofp/arma mission) where one american super soldier (the player) must single-handedly deal with epic amounts of enemy soldiers, tanks, attack helicopters etc because his buddies are either AWOL or so few in number that they get wiped out 10 seconds into the mission.

[maxqubit 1]

... the gmaeplay is being dumbed down in order to optimize it for console play.

No game released on PC should have that happen ...

Explain 'The Sims' to me ... does 'The Sims' says anything on ArmA (although they both run on the same platform)

'Dumbed down' refers to a product, NOT a platform

The only thing which i image to be different on 360/ps3 is a possible mission editor (because it should accomodate the gamers using their std controller) ... and scripting/modding of course (that may stay a pc exclusive)

[stakex 0]

... the gmaeplay is being dumbed down in order to optimize it for console play.

No game released on PC should have that happen ...

Explain 'The Sims' to me ... does 'The Sims' says anything on ArmA (although they both run on the same platform)

'Dumbed down' refers to a product, NOT a platform

The only thing which i image to be different on 360/ps3 is a possible mission editor (because it should accomodate the gamers using their std controller) ... and scripting/modding of course (that may stay a pc exclusive)

Its impossible to say what might be diffrent on a console, over a PC version. Even playing the two side by side you never know what was scraped from the game compleatly (including PC version) because it would either have made console dev time much longer, or simply not worked at all. Many games have had this happen, due to lazy dev teams, and not wanted to develop two proper games for diffrent systems...

A true physics engine, and dynamic destruction well might have been a victim of this in ArmA2. Lets face it, the devs told us they were a go, with no problems a while ago. And when they finally came out and said they had to scrap them, it was about the same time we heard about the console version. Sure they gave a fairly reasonable explination for that, but of course the dev team isn't going to ever tell its loyal fanbase (likely 99% computer gamers currently) that it skimmed features off its PC version to make its life easier on the console version. So you will always hear from the developers "Of course the console version didn't hurt the PC version..." but, you just never really know.

As for how "hard" the game will be... console games have a strong tendency to be very easy, because the console community tends to not like hard games, so they would hate a game like ArmA. Hopefully, if BIS intends for its console version to be easier... that dosn't effect the PC version.

[Frank-O 0]

The only way I can see ArmA2 exist on the console is if they just kept it to the single soldier format. Take out the squad leader aspect of ArmA on console. That way, the ai commander will give you waypoints to capture or move to with the rest of the squad. Even to the extent to return to base to pick up more soldiers and vehicles to replenish your squad. This would keep the illusion of the complexity of the game down for console players, whom just want pretty explosions and high fps and HDR effects. To speed things up, the console version would also lock in 1st person view, time warp to areas outside the objective when the player gets in a transport, so the console players don't complain about the fact that you have to travel so far just to get to battle.

Oh, and add the ability to pick your BDU/uniform, face/body camo pattern, helmet, eyewear, sidearm holster type, armor type and location, and backpack capacity during missions. Hair/eye/facial hair color, body weight and height during character creation, and the ability to advance into different service branches depending on how you perform in missions. Some type of "achievement" "trophy" system like XBOX360 or PS3 needs to roll in there.

[-Total- 0]

Economically speaking, it's far easier to create a game for the xBox.

The reason being is that there is one set of system parameters to work within because every xBox doesn't have different specifications. The developers know how far they can push the graphics, physics, etc

It's far more profitable at this point to create the game for the xBox and then port it to the PC. Adjust a few things on the GUI and controls for the PC version, and call it done.

ALOT of the gaming studios are taking this approach. It saves them the hassle of pushing the PC limits, but still staying compatible with all of the varying system architectures out there. Console users get a game that's perfect for the console and PC users get a product they feel "Is nice, but could have been alot more."

As I said in my original post:

Quote[/b] ]Hoping the "not as hard" doesn't refer to the fact that the gaweplay is being dumbed down in order to optimize it for console play.

With the profit in the console market though, I can't say I am extremely optimistic.

[Placebo 28]

The only way I can see ArmA2 exist on the console is if they just kept it to the single soldier format. Take out the squad leader aspect of ArmA on console.

Flashpoint Elite on the original Xbox worked fine without the need to do as you mention, it had a full squad system with commanding and such

[Grimnirsson 0]

Quote[/b] ]This would keep the illusion of the complexity of the game down for console players, whom just want pretty explosions and high fps and HDR effects.

I actually started to think about giving you a serious answer until I came to this sentence which made it pretty obvious that your post simply doesn't deserve it.

It's kinda funny to see you PC fanboys trying to ignore the dying process of your tool as the leading game platform. Whistling in the dark...

Grim

[BeerHunter 0]

I don't own a console game but have played a few and have to admit , the concept of trying to remember something like "Push Y and X then the Fire Button" to access an operation that is one key on the PC keyboard doesn't sound very appealing to me.

Think that's why they keep console games relatively simple..to reduce the number of compound keystrokes.

Very unlikely they could introduce the complexity of OFP2 , ArmedA etc. into consoles without "dumbing them down" quit a bit.

IMO consoles are relegated to simple to play games like CoD4.

[Grimnirsson 0]

Quote[/b] ]I don't own a console game but have played a few and have to admit , the concept of trying to remember something like "Push Y and X then the Fire Button" to access an operation that is one key on the PC keyboard  doesn't sound very appealing to me.

Well, that's not how gamepads work at least not after you get really used to them. I don't have to remember button combos, not consciously I mean. That becomes second nature really fast and I can play many games on the 360 without ever getting confused about the controls.

Quote[/b] ]Think that's why they keep console games relatively simple..to reduce the number of compound keystrokes.

As I said, not necessary. And as Ubisoft shows with their voice command (the one in End War seems to work without any problems) consoles are open to new control systems as well. I could imagine an OFP game with such a voice command...

Quote[/b] ]Very unlikely they could introduce the complexity of OFP2 , ArmedA etc. into consoles without "dumbing them down" quit a bit.

May I repeat what Placebo said?

Quote[/b] ]Flashpoint Elite on the original Xbox worked fine without the need to do as you mention, it had a full squad system with commanding and such

Grim

[Commando84 0]

I dunno i think it can be done, they did actually make ofp to the xbox 1, so nothing is impossible

[stakex 0]

Economically speaking, it's far easier to create a game for the xBox.

The reason being is that there is one set of system parameters to work within because every xBox doesn't have different specifications. The developers know how far they can push the graphics, physics, etc

It's far more profitable at this point to create the game for the xBox and then port it to the PC. Adjust a few things on the GUI and controls for the PC version, and call it done.

ALOT of the gaming studios are taking this approach. It saves them the hassle of pushing the PC limits, but still staying compatible with all of the varying system architectures out there. Console users get a game that's perfect for the console and PC users get a product they feel "Is nice, but could have been alot more."

As I said in my original post:

Quote[/b] ]Hoping the "not as hard" doesn't refer to the fact that the gaweplay is being dumbed down in order to optimize it for console play.

With the profit in the console market though, I can't say I am extremely optimistic.

That really is in fact the big issue with games now adays. Several games have had this problem, like COD4 and Oblivon. Both could have been far better if they were PC games, not console games... but instead it was very obvious they were simply ported over to the PC.

If developers want to release console and PC games, they should do what UbiSoft did with Far Cry, where they released a very powerful game for the PC and a diffrent, console based game for Xbox. Even tho the Far Cry console versions were after thoughts, it was still the best of both worlds... two games both tailored to their specific consoles, and everyone was happy.

Unlike the days when developers actually did think about pleasing ALL the gamers of the diffrent platforms they were making games for, now adays players are just dollar signs and the developers are going to do as little as possible to make the most profit. Its not THAT much harder to develop a slightly diffrent game for the PC and console... especially if it would be to please the majority of your fanbase. You know, the people who actually buy your games?

Idealy, the developers would build the best game they possibly could for the PC first (as its the strongest system), and then use the games assets to make a similar, but console capable game. If that means spending six months to a year makeing a striped down game for the console.... so be it. But of course this is the real world, and things aren't done that way anymore for the most part. Its perhaps a little more understandable from a studio such as BIS, which is small compared to most mainstream developers... but it dosn't make it suck any less.

[Inkompetent 0]

Idealy, the developers would build the best game they possibly could for the PC first (as its the strongest system), and then use the games assets to make a similar, but console capable game. If that means spending six months to a year makeing a striped down game for the console.... so be it. But of course this is the real world, and things aren't done that way anymore for the most part. Its perhaps a little more understandable from a studio such as BIS, which is small compared to most mainstream developers... but it dosn't make it suck any less.

It doesn't really work like that. What makes you think that a port from PC to console would make a better game than a port from console to PC?

You would probably have to remake more from a PC interface to make it usable and enjoyable on a console, than you need to get a console interface work on a PC. Sure, the console interface feels "dumb" on the PC since it's simplified for use with a gamepad instead of keyboard + mouse, but reversing that process would cause a lot of trouble.

It's like making movies out of books. You can transfer the overall feeling and essentials of one work to the other, but if you bring every little detail over it will fail because of the differences of the two mediums.

[Grimnirsson 0]

Quote[/b] ]If developers want to release console and PC games, they should do what UbiSoft did with Far Cry, where they released a very powerful game for the PC and a diffrent, console based game for Xbox. Even tho the Far Cry console versions were after thoughts, it was still the best of both worlds... two games both tailored to their specific consoles, and everyone was happy.

No, not everyone was happy, because the Xbox Far Cry just used the name of the PC game, but was different in many ways. The island was smaller, we had barriers you couldn't cross where the PC had none and the praised good AI was changed to the most dumb ass AI I have ever seen in any game.

Grim

[maxqubit 1]

I don't own a console game but have played a few and have to admit , the concept of trying to remember something like "Push Y and X then the Fire Button" to access an operation that is one key on the PC keyboard  doesn't sound very appealing to me.

I don't want a light to shine on my keyboard and frikking search for 1 key in the midst of 100+ other keys (and have to remember them as well, without a booklet, next to the keyboard on the frikking desk)

I want my eyes glued to the screen, my 2 hands round the damn near perfect 360 controller, fingers on the analogue triggers, 2 thumbs on 2!! analogue sticks ... with a couple of extra buttons to go, headset on, talking to my XBL buddies and go,go,go in my own self made, with the ffff***ggg mission editor, on a extended co-op campaign having serious fun in a quality mil sim shooter.

... and that is what i want on 360

[Mr_Tea 0]

A quality mil sim shooter controlled with an gamepad?

That works much better and more precisely with mouse and keyboard, than it could ever be with an gamepad. Analogue or not, a pad is simply the second choice to control a "shooter".

All that is needed to not get lost on the keyboard is a little bit of light.

[Grimnirsson 0]

Quote[/b] ]A quality mil sim shooter controlled with an gamepad?

You know what? One of the reasons - at least for me - that I like to use the 360 controller for shooters and especially mil sim shooters is that this controller feels much more like having a gun in your hand. Pulling the trigger to shoot is a different feeling than hitting a key...  

Grim

[dale0404 5]

Quote[/b] ]A quality mil sim shooter controlled with an gamepad?

You know what? One of the reasons - at least for me - that I like to use the 360 controller for shooters and especially mil sim shooters is that this controller feels much more like having a gun in your hand. Pulling the trigger to shoot is a different feeling than hitting a key...  

Grim

360 controllers have triggers?

Or is that the button on the back your talking about?

[Second 0]

Wii's controllers has been making me to wonder... Would they be good in shooters? Expacely when it would have been glued and taped on broom or meter long stick ... or are there some drawbacks? Well average player's unability to keep it stabile (results in not hitting anything) is a drawback, but i'm intreseted more about techincal side.