ArmA2 and Bohemia Interactive

[Snots 0]

I felt this thread was needed due to the amount of off-topic replys on this.

..........

I think those of that have been into pc sims since 386's would agree that no great sim was ever released that went well from the start. With complex sims and some are also in the class of War Engines, we the public are the final beta and i firmly believe in this. If you want this type of game engine released as a goer from the start for everyone, then it probably wouldnt happen at all as it would take so much longer to release and the cost would be prohibitive for the producer. Maybe thats why console games are so simple.

In my opinion there will be a percentage of people that will bore with the Console fad and seek something more complex and challenging so i hope Bohemia continues thier outstanding pc sim engines and interaction with thier fans. I wish other developers had the same attitude.

[LtCmdrBoon 0]

interesting view point

one thing that many gamers won't accept though, is BI reluctance to have spent some time learning DirectX 10 which is 2 years old now, a little over counting time that developers have had access to information and beta.

look at the effects and damage models etc of some recent games, still able to hold 50-60fps while doing so.

then come the "oh but remember time/money/limited staff" etc etc, and while most of us here may accept this, most gamers not reading these forums weekly simply wont. The classic example was the video someone made while someone was showing arma2 to the guy who was interviewing.

it was obvious the guy had no idea about the whole 'arma' and his facial expressions with the laughing at the game said it all. He couldnt' see the 220km^2 island, he just saw the ok type graphics of what was infront of him.

[wamingo 1]

In my opinion there will be a percentage of people that will bore with the Console fad and seek something more complex and challenging

Today's culture is fast paced, very visual, and not too much thinking. I hope you're right, but something tells me that easy instant gratification games are here to stay for quite some time.

[Noraf 0]

well, the bad thing if they had implemented dx10, would be that you'll exclude anyone who's not running vista atm.

and i'm sure i'm not the only one that's thinking about just skipping vista, just as i skipped me

other than that, i too agree, you can't simply release a game that would satisfy everyone, and you don't get to test the game on massive scale without a release, or a 2k + beta testing, and i do not think that would be practical for a game of this kind. Remember all the harware trouble there has been with arma ( for some, others haven't had problems at all since the german release )

[maxqubit 1]

Look, ArmA(2) is a very HARD-CORE game ... Don't try to sell that to casual gamers.

Yeah, if you want to sell it to a happy-go-lucky-run-and-gun-cod-console kids you will get these remarks.

Nope, sell it to the guys who once played OFP1 and you will have much less 'dumb' reactions.

I have played OFP1, on pc. Played Elite on Xbox and am eagerly awaiting ArmA2 on 360. I know what to expect. Sell ArmA2 to me and hopefully to some borderline BF/GR/RS guys who look for something 'a bit' more realistic ... that is your audience. ArmA2 is a niche title, face it. Focus on that, NOT on the zillion Halo (the instant-gratification kind of) kids outthere:)

[Scrub 0]

To put a few more words in Maxqubits' mouth, er, hands: Sell this directly to the hardcore market, and for the first few months, you'll have a ton of negative comments from the C.K. group, interspersed with some positive raving from devoted sim'ers.. Until the C.K.s' convert to hardcore or go find the next 5 minute flash of satisfaction. Happened with OFP and ArmA I.

[sic-disaster 311]

Look, ArmA(2) is a very HARD-CORE game ... Don't try to sell that to casual gamers.

Yeah, if you want to sell it to a happy-go-lucky-run-and-gun-cod-console kids you will get these remarks.

Nope, sell it to the guys who once played OFP1 and you will have much less 'dumb' reactions.

I have played OFP1, on pc. Played Elite on Xbox and am eagerly awaiting ArmA2 on 360. I know what to expect. Sell ArmA2 to me and hopefully to some borderline BF/GR/RS guys who look for something 'a bit' more realistic ... that is your audience. ArmA2 is a niche title, face it. Focus on that, NOT on the zillion Halo (the instant-gratification kind of) kids outthere:)

I see you mentioning Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six in a way that implies they are less realistic then OFP/ArmA.

I so regret to say that this is true for the lastest games that were supposed to go through for a GR or R6 game, but truth is that the R6 and GR as most people know it now is nothing like what it used to be.

Advanced Warfighter and Vegas (and Lockdown too for that matter) are utterly simplified to accomodate this new fad of instant gratification.

Yet, it was Rainbow Six that birthed the tactical shooter-genre to begin with. It was not as big in scale as OFP, but it's realism was right up there with OFP and ArmA.

To put it simple: the mother of tactical gaming got raped up the butt, and the same happened with Ghost Recon. GR used to be on par with OFP, and is the game that comes nearest to what OFP/ArmA are in terms of open-area combat and realism, in forests, cities, deserts, jungle, you name it. Ghost Recon had it. Untill Ubisoft took over, and that's when Lockdown/Vegas and Advanced Warfighter came in, and completely changed everything that was good about the original games to cash in.

I'm getting so sick and tired of always having to tell everybody that Vegas is NOT wat Rainbow Six is all about.

It frustrates me to hell and back to see younger gamers think that way about my beloved R6, as well as older gamers (who frankly, should know better), wich founded the tactical genre. Makes me want to blow Ubisoft up.

[Second 0]

ArmA2 will not be destined as niece game if dev-team manages to get good points from reviews. It has change to sell ~million of copies if getting lots of good points from reviewers. Common players are not dumb-asses, they know when game is good, they even read reviews and play what their friends tells them. No reason to become elitist-bastard. Granted they might not create missions, mod, hang in forums, or spent 100-9999 hours on it, but they buy a game and contribute to BIS to keep up their work.

Good shooter sells well, of course ArmA2 has to compete in serious league aside with COD-series and rest of gang. But if ArmA2 gets awesome scores it's strength in selling to masses is it's (re-)fresh approach. Big spaces, freedom of action (atleast to some degree) and variety of battlefields, from open plains, dark forests to villages and cities. While still serving imersive battles, Big Action and small-unit engagements. Gamers are looking always something (slightly) new and interesting and that makes gaming industry to evolve.

[Michael_Wittman 0]

ArmA2 will not be destined as niece game if dev-team manages to get good points from reviews. It has change to sell ~million of copies if getting lots of good points from reviewers. Common players are not dumb-asses, they know when game is good, they even read reviews and play what their friends tells them. No reason to become elitist-bastard. Granted they might not create missions, mod, hang in forums, or spent 100-9999 hours on it, but they buy a game and contribute to BIS to keep up their work.

Good shooter sells well, of course ArmA2 has to compete in serious league aside with COD-series and rest of gang. But if ArmA2 gets awesome scores it's strength in selling to masses is it's (re-)fresh approach. Big spaces, freedom of action (atleast to some degree) and variety of battlefields, from open plains, dark forests to villages and cities. While still serving imersive battles, Big Action and small-unit engagements. Gamers are looking always something (slightly) new and interesting and that makes gaming industry to evolve.

If they are going to target COD/BF players then the spirit of the game will be raped. If you want to satisfy eveybody you´ll not satisfy noone. So I think there are a few posible scenarios:

- The game delevops the concept began with OFP pushing forward realism and hardcore : BIS will keep their crowd and eventually gain some more gamers tired of the "spray-n-pray" gazillion games out there.

- The game cuts realism for the shake of consoles and casual gamers, although map is still monster-size they cannot reach the current detail level in buildings, props...and all the polys and effects other games can put in. The game is a failure only comparable to old ATARI "E.T." BF/COD players dont find it as eye candy or playable as they liked + it has the worst anti-cheating protection on the market - BF/COD players trow it to the trash. Most of the hardcore players flee for obvious reasons... very few of them remain to mod it for months untill they get a shadow of what they expected.

- The game repeats what Ubisoft made with GR....obtaining the same results.

[Second 0]

If they are going to target COD/BF players then the spirit of the game will be raped. If you want to satisfy eveybody you´ll not satisfy noone. So I think there are a few posible scenarios:

- The game delevops the concept began with OFP pushing forward realism and hardcore : BIS will keep their crowd and eventually gain some more gamers tired of the "spray-n-pray" gazillion games out there.

- The game cuts realism for the shake of consoles and casual gamers, although map is still monster-size they cannot reach the current detail level in buildings, props...and all the polys and effects other games can put in. The game is a failure only comparable to old ATARI "E.T." BF/COD players dont find it as eye candy or playable as they liked + it has the worst anti-cheating protection on the market - BF/COD players trow it to the trash. Most of the hardcore players flee for obvious reasons... very few of them remain to mod it for months untill they get a shadow of what they expected.

- The game repeats what Ubisoft made with GR....obtaining the same results.

Lots of player will buy game, when review states: "This game is going to be classic" and if it happens to be shooter... It's pretty much that simple. They don't need to specially target it, as it is shooter. There we have target audience (=those who like to play shooters), no need to dumb down or anything. Just present good enough game. Sure it won't reach same level of buyers as some EA super-marketed game, which on top of that happens to be great game (=high points in reviews). But it will defined be something more than just niece game bought just by some shady "hard core simulator" and "common player are n00bs with no brains"-audience.

Sure ArmA2 engine does have it's weaknesses (like heavily cheatable, if BIS doesn't manage to do something about it), but then again it has also strengths. So i say again: If it gets good scores, it most likely sells pretty well.

Quite frankly i dont' see how ArmA2 goes to more extreme simulator direction, when it clearly seems to follow OFP's track of focusing into infantry (like shooters does), while lightly simulating vehicles.

[Michael_Wittman 0]

Well let´s say ARMA is "Million Dollar Baby" and BF/COD is the latest Disney´s sweet-n-warm movie... They both sale great but you shouldnt mix´em up don´t you?

[lwlooz 0]

Hello there,

I am afraid I must say that BIS in the eyes of this OFP Veteran went down the wrong road some time ago already.

In my view anyways , BIS did some drastically different in simulating warfare. They did it from the top-down (albeit unknowingly it seems) :

You had your reasonable sized combat area with meaningful terrain.

You had your large number of somewhat organized combatants able to perform tactical maneuvers.

You had the combined arms nature of modern combat represented [Artillery with addons]

And then and just then you had your individual weapon-systems part , which if you look at it wasn't even all that realistic in parts ,

but with the top down approach it made for a fantastic game unparalled to this very day.

Now the rest of this post is based on assumption and I would be rather happy to be wrong , but...

then someone,sometime,somewhere influenced by the growing pure-FPS demographic (the people that refuse to play anything where they can't wave guns around) within the community

and the buzz about the exploding casual gamers market made the decision to turn this "Sandbox Combined Arms Sim" into a "I play soldier - Infantry Shooter".

With all the focus being on graphics,effects,gimmicks all for the almost sole attention to the infantry-man shooting at stuff – not caring what that stuff was or did.

That was ArmA , a massive failure therefore in my opinion , because while it had many nice little addtions and surely massive overhaul under the hood

Sandbox-Warfare-Gameplay wise it didn't improve the level OFP was at one bit and even made it worse in some regards (May I say AI control...).

For my part I call this development-direction of going for the "Infantry Shooter" a dead end and I will have to disagree with Second there.

One may develop the infantry/gun aspect of the simulation to extreme detail , but with everything else left at a basic level even tho you might be able to dis/assemble your weapon,

tie your shoelaces , breach walls , apply a bandage , adjust your optics or unjam your weapon you still will run around in this little arcade world of tanks,helicopters and helpless AI.

I believe one will just feel more and more out of place.

Or to put it in other words: Impressing a player with awesome effects and graphics and cinematic action is one thing , providing continous fun with believable combat scenarios is something

completely different. Or yet again: What is the point of playing a 99% realistic soldier if the rest of the simulation has been doomed to stay at 20-40% forever.

Before I get viciously attack for things that I actually didn't mean , I will never expect a fully realistic sim , nor am I expecting radical improvements next Tuesday , but it at least seems

to me instead of focusing only on one aspect to be the far better approach to focus on the overal warfare simulation , always keeping the big picture in mind.

Therefore I hope that since that was completely disregarded for ArmA, BIS really has some good improvements in the area of AI (and along with that goes AI control – nameley AI squad

command interface , theres no point in good AI if the player can't effectively control it in my opinion). I have already given up that we will get any vehicle sim improvements (tank warfare esp.).

[if any BIS employess comes past this , I will be extremely grateful if there will be a proper "Saving in Multiplayer" in ArmA2,so it isn't all gloomy, but that doesn't change my opinion about lack

of serious noticeable improvements in actual combat simulation]

As for console version, I still fail to see how casual gaming (which one usually does on consoles , no?) and BIS games go along together , but if they get extra sales by that , why not.

I am sure BIS is smart enough to give console gamers and PC gamers a different game interface and perhaps even audacious enough to pack the PC version with bug-prone and

experimental features. I don't mind any buggy game [i had my OFP crash(BSOD) 1-2 times on average on every(! ) campaign mission I played] if I see a serious effort to improve the game.

Enough Waffling for Today.

[sparks50 0]

Well, the core part of any army is the infantry, and I think BI did well by focusing on them.

[-Total- 0]

Nothing could compare to the wonderous impact of OFP when it was released, simply put, because nothing like that existed then (someone else pointed this out too).

Nothing will EVER take the place of the original.

Case in point, my views:

In late 1999, Unreal Tournament killed the game of Unreal. It was slower, buggy, and cartoonish in comparison.

In 2001, Tribes2 was nowhere near as successful or as impactful as it's predecessor Starsiege: Tribes. After over a dozen patches, they finally got it to a point where most could find a mod they liked.

Many of the original Battlefield 1942/Desert Combat players were extremely disappointed with the dumbed down gameplay in Battlefield 2. UAV's (map-wide radar), airstrikes called in remotely instead of calling in a skilled pilot, artillery strikes called in instead of using a spotter and cannon operator, supply drops instead of protecting the area arouind the supply cahces, etc etc

In 2006 (UK release) Operation Flashpoint fans were besheveled by the buggy and horribly plain release of Armed Assault: Combat Operations.

I am watching the videos for ArmA2 though and I am hopeful. I see many things that took community modders almost 2 years to get into the game, already present in ArmA2. There's already more than just "Here, have an island, a few vehicles, and some guns"

While it will never make me gasp like OFP did, I know that going in. Nothing ever will.

[echo1 0]

one thing that many gamers won't accept though, is BI reluctance to have spent some time learning DirectX 10 which is 2 years old now, a little over counting time that developers have had access to information and beta.

look at the effects and damage models etc of some recent games, still able to hold 50-60fps while doing so.

First off, DirectX 10 hasnt been a tremendous success - alot of games designers haven't bothered implementing in, or have left it as part of some "Very High Detail" graphics setting, not least because of the fact that only about 20-30% of PC users have computers capable of supporting DirectX10, and much less have the right hardware to run a DX10 game well. So BIS is little different to a large majority of companies that have released games since Vista came out.

The other issue is in regards to FPS - the scale of ArmA is so much bigger than most (non-flight sim) games that such comparisons are meaningless. That's why a game like ArmA whose graphics look dated in parts compared to its contemporaries is still chewing up modern hardware - its huge! Less can be more when it comes to superflous detail in this regard.

Quote[/b] ]Yet, it was Rainbow Six that birthed the tactical shooter-genre to begin with. It was not as big in scale as OFP, but it's realism was right up there with OFP and ArmA.

To put it simple: the mother of tactical gaming got raped up the butt, and the same happened with Ghost Recon. GR used to be on par with OFP, and is the game that comes nearest to what OFP/ArmA are in terms of open-area combat and realism, in forests, cities, deserts, jungle, you name it. Ghost Recon had it. Untill Ubisoft took over, and that's when Lockdown/Vegas and Advanced Warfighter came in, and completely changed everything that was good about the original games to cash in.

I'm getting so sick and tired of always having to tell everybody that Vegas is NOT wat Rainbow Six is all about.

It frustrates me to hell and back to see younger gamers think that way about my beloved R6, as well as older gamers (who frankly, should know better), wich founded the tactical genre. Makes me want to blow Ubisoft up.

Damn right... I know people who would sell their own mothers to have a game like Rogue Spear remade with modern graphics

[Second 0]

Well let´s say ARMA is "Million Dollar Baby" and BF/COD is the latest Disney´s sweet-n-warm movie... They both sale great but you shouldnt mix´em up don´t you?

Why shouldn't i mix them? Sure they all are different, but main point in all of them is to shoot enemies. In ArmA as in BF that includes vehicles is quite regular basis.

[Second 0]

For my part I call this development-direction of going for the "Infantry Shooter" a dead end and I will have to disagree with Second there.

One may develop the infantry/gun aspect of the simulation to extreme detail , but with everything else left at a basic level even tho you might be able to dis/assemble your weapon,

tie your shoelaces , breach walls , apply a bandage , adjust your optics or unjam your weapon you still will run around in this little arcade world of tanks,helicopters and helpless AI.

I believe one will just feel more and more out of place.

Or to put it in other words: Impressing a player with awesome effects and graphics and cinematic action is one thing , providing continous fun with believable combat scenarios is something

completely different. Or yet again: What is the point of playing a 99% realistic soldier if the rest of the simulation has been doomed to stay at 20-40% forever.

Before I get viciously attack for things that I actually didn't mean , I will never expect a fully realistic sim , nor am I expecting radical improvements next Tuesday , but it at least seems

to me instead of focusing only on one aspect to be the far better approach to focus on the overal warfare simulation , always keeping the big picture in mind.

Therefore I hope that since that was completely disregarded for ArmA, BIS really has some good improvements in the area of AI (and along with that goes AI control – nameley AI squad

command interface , theres no point in good AI if the player can't effectively control it in my opinion). I have already given up that we will get any vehicle sim improvements (tank warfare esp.).

First i think you misunderstood my shooter word. from Wiki concerning first-person-shooter:

"The character is nominally a literal person; humanoid movement is expected. Games that primarily involve piloting vehicles are more correctly classified as vehicle simulation games."

OFP/ArmA takes middle road in this, but i think main focus remains in infantry as that is what is played most by players and which has main role in campaign and single missions. So there.

And which tells you that ArmA2 will focus even more to infantry aspect? As far as i can tell it seems to stay as it has been from days of OFP. Infantry having games best simulation (stamina, iron sights, ballistics etc) while rest staying more arcadey. It doesn't need to evolve to more infantry direction as that base is pretty much there already on it's place. That's about infantry/vehicle simulation aspect for player.

Combat simulation's (in wargaming terms to deliver realistic battlefields) main problem is pretty much AI. In ArmA it's dumb as goose. That is main problem i see when trying to create realistic missions. BIS is saying that it will be improved, have major overhaul even (micro-AI). If that works well and vehicle and infantry behaves more intelligent and realistic manner (notice lack of SOPs and battle drills in ArmA, or lack of effects of fire other than wound or kill) then we are closer to more whole battlefield.

If and when BIS gets there but still gives me my gun to kill my enemies i still call it shooter. I pray my arms crossed that i dont' have to call it vehicle simulation game or wargame.

[Michael_Wittman 0]

Well let´s say ARMA is "Million Dollar Baby" and BF/COD is the latest Disney´s sweet-n-warm movie... They both sale great but you shouldnt mix´em up don´t you?

Why shouldn't i mix them? Sure they all are different, but main point in all of them is to shoot enemies. In ArmA as in BF that includes vehicles is quite regular basis.

Maybe its just my experience but most of the players I find playing this are well over their 28s-30s...my own clanmates are all over 30 (some of them are daddys ). It is great to play a game like ARMA with polite, mature and cooperative people. To say the truth my clan is pretty large and includes another amount of people that play BF2...lets say that overall we are around 35-40 members from wich only 10-12 play ARMA. Firtsly we were a different clan, but merged with the BF2 people for the sake of saving money in the server renting.. more than 1 year after the merging I can tell you some of the BF2 players have tryed to play ARMA and yet only 1 or 2 of them switched game...the rest of the cases is like oil and water we simply dont mix. My personal experience with BF2 lasted like 5-10 minutes before I uninstalled it...and that really suxs balls when I allready payed 50 Euros for the game. So my experience here says wether they really make a arcade-mode for the game or they are having a hell of a hard time to put copys of this for console users...

Lets say most of the PC gamers havent ever had contact with simulators (say LOMAC, Falcon 4.0, IL2, Silent Hunter...) or Tactical level Strategy games (Combat Mission series...) ... now try to traduce that to consoles (see what I mean).

Although the micro-AI on this game is pretty poor and although there is a complete lack of a tactical level AI the game is pretty difficult to play for most of the people that try to play this based on their experience in arcade games (how many times have you seen Rambos going straight with their tanks and light armors without infantry support inside the citys? - how many support vehicles down the drain?)

Since the release of ARMA there are lot of people that quitted playing the game for various reasons:

- Too high PC requirements to run sumthing alike smooth.

- Too many bugs/crashes.

- Low playability PvP and complete lack of any competent anti-cheating system.

- Rude awakening of the arcade gamer to the simulator level.

I think that the rude awakening of the arcade gamers that try this could be eased by making proper tutorials so they get a comprehensive understanding of the weaponry avaivable on the game. By this they should at least have textbook examples of what is reasonable or not to do in the battle and so they get a starting point to develop their own tactics and dont get frustrated being killed like cattle.

[Call911-AGE- 0]

In my opinion there will be a percentage of people that will bore with the Console fad and seek something more complex and challenging

Today's culture is fast paced, very visual, and not too much thinking. I hope you're right, but something tells me that easy instant gratification games are here to stay for quite some time.

Yeah go fig just read in another froumn that they announced another COD MW2. It really sux because b4 pc online gaming there was ...how many console games you could play online an now look at it. I just gotta say TG for ArmA2 an maybe OFP2 to keep it alive. Dunno maybe if when I was a kid we had all these goodies I'd feel differnt.

[Second 0]

Well let´s say ARMA is "Million Dollar Baby" and BF/COD is the latest Disney´s sweet-n-warm movie... They both sale great but you shouldnt mix´em up don´t you?

Why shouldn't i mix them? Sure they all are different, but main point in all of them is to shoot enemies. In ArmA as in BF that includes vehicles is quite regular basis.

Maybe its just my experience but most of the players I find playing this are well over their 28s-30s...my own clanmates are all over 30 (some of them are daddys   ). It is great to play a game like ARMA with polite, mature and cooperative people. To say the truth my clan is pretty large and includes another amount of people that play BF2...lets say that overall we are around 35-40 members from wich only 10-12 play ARMA. Firtsly we were a different clan, but merged with the BF2 people for the sake of saving money in the server renting.. more than 1 year after the merging I can tell you some of the BF2 players have tryed to play ARMA and yet only 1 or 2 of them switched game...the rest of the cases is like oil and water we simply dont mix. My personal experience with BF2 lasted like 5-10 minutes before I uninstalled it...and that really suxs balls when I allready payed 50 Euros for the game. So my experience here says wether they really make a arcade-mode for the game or they are having a hell of a hard time to put copys of this for console users...

Lets say most of the PC gamers havent ever had contact with simulators (say LOMAC, Falcon 4.0, IL2, Silent Hunter...) or Tactical level Strategy games (Combat Mission series...) ... now try to traduce that to consoles (see what I mean).

Although the micro-AI on this game is pretty poor and although there is a complete lack of a tactical level AI the game is pretty difficult to play for most of the people that try to play this based on their experience in arcade games (how many times have you seen Rambos going straight with their tanks and light armors without infantry support inside the citys? - how many support vehicles down the drain?)

Since the release of ARMA there are lot of people that quitted playing the game for various reasons:

- Too high PC requirements to run sumthing alike smooth.

- Too many bugs/crashes.

- Low playability PvP and complete lack of any competent anti-cheating system.

- Rude awakening of the arcade gamer to the simulator level.

I think that the rude awakening of the arcade gamers that try this could be eased by making proper tutorials so they get a comprehensive understanding of the weaponry avaivable on the game. By this they should at least have textbook examples of what is reasonable or not to do in the battle and so they get a starting point to develop their own tactics and dont get frustrated being killed like cattle.

You know why common players don't like ArmA? Because there are better games. And that is not about level of simulation or arcadeness (because most games offers same level in infantry handling, some also in vehicle handling), that is because ArmA isn't worth their time. In other words: there are better games.

As far as putting BF down goes i have to point out that ArmA MP died pretty fast. And besides many OFP players went to play games which offered better vehicle simulation.

Quote[/b] ]- Rude awakening of the arcade gamer to the simulator level.

This really asks for to be shot down. Tell me what you mean this. You never define it, just toss word simulation and arcade in every another sentence. Now define it.

btw. Simulator refers to word vehicle... Now ArmA's vehicles... Hard to learn?   You can't compare Arma to wargames with complexity and realism of battlefield or vehicle controls and technical details of full breed flight and tank simulators. ArmA is way too arcade for those... And it's a shooter

And rest of your list falls to fact that BIS made flawed game. It's not gamer's fault if he sees unfinished game which really isn't most shining gem in markets. I really can't enjoy the taste which rotten eggs leaves in my mouth... Even if i want to.

[Michael_Wittman 0]

Its true that vehicles are kinda arcade but to play in such a scale as ARMA is when many people are used to Rambo-ing playing in maps the size of a shoebox with no sniper shots longer than 200-300m at best, with hand-grenade fests, jumping and shooting, tank engagements at point blank and a character capable of taking as many shot as their lifebar allows them...yes for those people its hard to learn the game. Rude awakening is some random kid with a great k/d ratio in any random shooter that tryes ARMA thinking he will kickass from the beggining... and inevitably freaks out after a few weeks of unsuccessfull Rambo-ing.

You say there are better games...well maybe you can point out a game comparable to ARMA...I can´t....

Better vehicle simulator....of course...any pure armor or pure flight simulator does better.

Maybe there are better pure simulator, pure tactical games, pure infantry simulators...but I really dont know any other game combining all in one...maybe when OPF2 comes out we finally see currency.

[maxqubit 1]

^^ But i'm 99% that if you throw ArmA2 at a casual gamer he won't like it.

A casual gamers simply won't 'understand' a game like ArmA  (heck they have even trouble to 'understand' a big map like GTA4 or FarCry2 and want a 'fast travel' system)

Now try to explain 'ballistics' to a casual gamer, a gamer who is used to laser like shots.

Now try to explain that you could be shot by an unseen bullet/enemy after a 15 minute 'walk' without having fired 1 shot

Above are just a few simple examples, besides the usual gfx stuff.

Trying to sell ArmA2 to casual gamers you should first make sure ArmA2 is a good GAME ... which is a heck of a task if you want to keep the 'difficult' (realistic) bits. Tbh, i don't see that happening and therefor i said that ArmA2 will be a niche game, unnoticed/unwanted by the CoDMW masses.

[Second 0]

Its true that vehicles are kinda arcade but to play in such a scale as ARMA is when many people are used to Rambo-ing playing in maps the size of a shoebox with no sniper shots longer than 200-300m at best, with hand-grenade fests, jumping and shooting, tank engagements at point blank and a character capable of taking as many shot as their lifebar allows them...yes for those people its hard to learn the game. Rude awakening is some random kid with a great k/d ratio in any random shooter that tryes ARMA thinking he will kickass from the beggining... and inevitably freaks out after a few weeks of unsuccessfull Rambo-ing.

You say there are better games...well maybe you can point out a game comparable to ARMA...I can´t....

Better vehicle simulator....of course...any pure armor or pure flight simulator does better.

Maybe there are better pure simulator, pure tactical games, pure infantry simulators...but I really dont know any other game combining all in one...maybe when OPF2 comes out we finally see currency.

What ramboing? In current games you don't rambo anything, trust me i tried that in COD. It got me killed. tried it in Crysis... Yup, got me killed. Overall every shooter requires new learning. ArmA is not different. If players are willing to learn how to use nanosuit as tactical advantage in Crysis, they are pretty far, and most players were willing to learn it.

You seem to talk only about BF it seems, however there are others. But yes what you describe is pretty much curse of all games. MP in ArmA's public servers included.

Yes we have found breaking point: You can't define better game than what as ArmA is. Neither can't i, i can name bunch of games doing stuff better than ArmA does and i can say what Arma made better than those. But that is my point of view and i can't say which is best. Because of that i leave finding of ultimate answer to gaming press, which by forming average score from army of (more or less) professional reviewers.

[Second 0]

^^ But i'm 99% that if you throw ArmA2 at a casual gamer he won't like it.

A casual gamers simply won't 'understand' a game like ArmA  (heck they have even trouble to 'understand' a big map like GTA4 or FarCry2 and want a 'fast travel' system)

Now try to explain 'ballistics' to a casual gamer, a gamer who is used to laser like shots.

Now try to explain that you could be shot by an unseen bullet/enemy after a 15 minute 'walk' without having fired 1 shot

Above are just a few simple examples, besides the usual gfx stuff.

Trying to sell ArmA2 to casual gamers you should first make sure ArmA2 is a good GAME ... which is a heck of a task if you want to keep the 'difficult' (realistic) bits. Tbh, i don't see that happening and therefor i said that ArmA2 will be a niche game, unnoticed/unwanted by the CoDMW masses.

And your point is wrong. You see casual gamers as dumb asses who understands nothing out of your "casual gamer" stereotype. That is pretty elitist view and wrong.

How come they still buy and play (and enjoy) those games? GTA is hard as nails to learn to play well, atleast back in days of Liberty City. ArmA's flightmodel is eaaaasy compared to it.

Try flying 15 minutes and then crash to ground just before you were to finish that mission. Aaaaaand re-start from start after getting out of from hospital, stealing car and be chased by polices.

What is realistically difficult in ArmA??? Sniper AI performing shots which world's elite snipers would not be capable of? Thru darkness without NVGs.

Sure wrap in you niece-gamer wrappings. However reality has already proven multiple times that you are wrong.

[lockjaw-65- 0]

When i was growing up i used to make model tanks and collect armys of plastic soldiers. then i made battlefields for them to go on, then i found a book on table top wargame rules and tried to simulate stratergy using tape measures and dice. Then it got really complicated and i wrote my own rules which included armour thickness and angles of impact etc. All this was very complicated and a small skirmish could take all evening. Many years later i saw operation flashpoint advertised and bought it. This was just amazing. nothing else has been able to recreate that immersion i used to get. The point being there are lots of other people out there like me always trying to recreate that relistic and strategic war game. There is nothing else that can compare and i have tried them. Bis is doing a great job and to me it looks like Arma2 is fantastic. It is a development and it gets better and better.