[Petition] Tank Interiors

[dslyecxi 23]

Quote[/b] ]No, they said it (it wasn't their "marketing", rather the lead designer/programmer) because they will do it.

They will go with ultra realism for OFP2, non lame-balancing/whatever stuff unlike BIS did it everytime, you will even have to put together single parts of a Javelin launcher to make it ready... simply everything like its in the real world (in a simplified way of course).

Trust me, they would do care about "a bad press" if such "major announced features" will be not in their game - its a multi-billion-pound corporation.

You are the most gullible person I think I've ever met on these forums. Talk is cheap - very cheap. CM can say such things as much as they want, but until they actually deliver them, it's all talk.

You talk of promises as if they are facts, and you try to use these "facts" in your arguments on the BIS forums. Why not make arguments on their own merits, instead of constantly trying to compare a real product (A2) to words (OFP2)? I hope you're not under the delusion that making arguments via the "But the OFP2 devs SAID they'd have this!" method is an effective or even smart thing to do.

[max power 21]

To add, BIS said they planned all kinds of neat things for Game 2 as well. They could not deliver all of them to their full realization, sadly, due to all kinds of different unforeseen factors. This resulted in a lot of disappointment and even some misgivings on the part of the community. This is because people take initial design plans as gospel, and get all bent out of shape when something stands in the way of their pet feature. As Dsl was saying, it would be better for everyone if people just took these claims for what they are- developer plans, made sometimes years in advance. Don't get all hyped up about what the devs are saying about their plans for a title and then don't get all vitriolic when these plans don't materialize in the way you thought. Rest assured, Codemasters will more than likely have to pear down on their own promises as well. I hope that their community is as 'enthusiastic' and 'lively' as ours is when their time comes.

[raedor 8]

Please, do not further discuss OFP2 vs A2 here, there are other threads for that.

[Uziyahu--IDF 0]

What's sad about having armored vehicle interiors is that when addon-makers want to create a vehicle, they have to model all of that.  Lots of addons don't get made because they aren't able to create realistic interiors.

I agree that it was cool, and would be even cooler with TrackIR, but I've played lots of other games where I didn't even notice that there was no vehicle interior.  If I'm the gunner, I'm simply too busy looking for the enemy.

I don't go along with Dyslexci's "this late in development?" argument, because that has been said EVERY TIME a B.I. title has been in development.  (It was said when I asked for side-doorguns in the UH60's, but somehow B.I. worked that in.) I seem to recall him leveling this same argument for ArmA 1.  Somehow interim periods don't seem to make any MORE of a difference in whether something the community wants gets implemented and things that were requested in previous development cycles (when it was thought that "this late in development?" was a valid argument) are conveniently forgotten before the NEXT development cycle, when apologists like Dsl can spring the trap, again.

Becoming acquainted with the development cycles and attendant PR of various franchises can turn you into a cynic.

I do agree that resources can be better spent on ArmA's more pressing needs.  Ragdolls, anyone?

[dslyecxi 23]

I don't go along with Dyslexci's "this late in development?" argument, because that has been said EVERY TIME a B.I. title has been in development.  (It was said when I asked for side-doorguns in the UH60's, but somehow B.I. worked that in.) I seem to recall him leveling this same argument for ArmA 1.  Somehow interim periods don't seem to make any MORE of a difference in whether something the community wants gets implemented and things that were requested in previous development cycles (when it was thought that "this late in development?" was a valid argument) are conveniently forgotten before the NEXT development cycle, when apologists like Dsl can spring the trap, again.

The thought that you could, via "petition", cause something as major as "3d vehicle interiors" to go from "Not planned" to "Implemented" is simply wishful thinking, especially considering the cited number of vehicles in A2. You can call that being "apologist" all you'd like, but it doesn't change the simple truth in it.

Assuming that BIS suddenly had the capability to do so, via additional manpower or extra development time or whatnot, I would hope that they would put that extra development power into any number of other areas. "Ragdoll" isn't one of them, though - it's mostly eye candy, and as we saw with A1, there are plenty of non-eye-candy areas where BIS could significantly improve the experience.

Suggesting "3d interiors" after A1 came out, as a request for the next game - perfectly valid. It happened. Suggesting them now, or rather - petitioning for them now - it's silly. The manner in which it was done was equally silly.

[-Total- 0]

Not an issue for me. I didn't really look at the tank, APC interiors when I was in them in real life. Too busy looking for what was gonna shoot at me next lol!

[mr.g-c 6]

Quote[/b] ]No, they said it (it wasn't their "marketing", rather the lead designer/programmer) because they will do it.

They will go with ultra realism for OFP2, non lame-balancing/whatever stuff unlike BIS did it everytime, you will even have to put together single parts of a Javelin launcher to make it ready... simply everything like its in the real world (in a simplified way of course).

Trust me, they would do care about "a bad press" if such "major announced features" will be not in their game - its a multi-billion-pound corporation.

You are the most gullible person I think I've ever met on these forums. Talk is cheap - very cheap. CM can say such things as much as they want, but until they actually deliver them, it's all talk.

You talk of promises as if they are facts, and you try to use these "facts" in your arguments on the BIS forums. Why not make arguments on their own merits, instead of constantly trying to compare a real product (A2) to words (OFP2)? I hope you're not under the delusion that making arguments via the "But the OFP2 devs SAID they'd have this!" method is an effective or even smart thing to do.  

The thought that you could, via "petition", cause something as major as "3d vehicle interiors" to go from "Not planned" to "Implemented" is simply wishful thinking, especially considering the cited number of vehicles in A2. You can call that being "apologist" all you'd like, but it doesn't change the simple truth in it.

AND

Assuming that BIS suddenly had the capability to do so, via additional manpower or extra development time or whatnot, I would hope that they would put that extra development power into any number of other areas. "Ragdoll" isn't one of them, though - it's mostly eye candy, and as we saw with A1, there are plenty of non-eye-candy areas where BIS could significantly improve the experience.

Suggesting "3d interiors" after A1 came out, as a request for the next game - perfectly valid. It happened. Suggesting them now, or rather - petitioning for them now - it's silly. The manner in which it was done was equally silly.

Dsl, would you please stop to turn everything i said around, stop sucking-off what you "want to hear" from my posts and then use it for ridiculing/attacking me?

It's not "bla bla bla" because YOU said "bla bla bla", you are not a BIS decision-maker, nor a forums moderator, why do you always come like

"everything i say is correct, true, whatever - every other opinion is wrong/false/shit/whatever - i must appear to others in an "overbearing" way and destroy their opinions at every cost"

Thats not nice

I know you are one of the guys which would be pleased with a pretty half-arse'd early spit-out game, but its time for you to understand that people around having IN FACT DIFFERENT OPINIONS on that.

If you would read through dozens of Forums worldwide where they talk about Arma(2), you could read that people are wanting/demanding such features very badly - there 1000's of em.

Many many of them even say they will move to the competitor product (OFP2), if BIS doesn't make it correct this time.

I think it's really time for BIS to take action this time, hearing what the community wants and implement it.

Didn't even Suma said in the 2007 Interviews, that they "programmed Arma1 in a other direction than what the potential customers/fans wanted" ?

If it takes more time, then delay it another quarter - personally i'm very convinced that delivering a "complete" game which really feels like one (and missing interiors on MBT, while all other vehicles got some, feels really like something "half-hearted"), will be honored/payed off by the gaming-press reviews and thus resulting in even more sales for BIS.

[Rak 0]

Oops someone made BIS "Jesus" Dslyecxi angry again. He shall smite thee with his BOLD sentences and personal attacks!

On-topic, it's not gonna happen with ArmA 2. And it won't happen. Simple as that. BIS won't be improving their franchise marginally(read: overhaul) in near or far future, period. I'd suggest look for your "hopes" elsewhere.

[NoRailgunner 0]

mr.g-c why you dont stop insisting that BIS is unaware about ArmA bugs and ArmA2 feature/eyecandy request? Maybe BIS is working on tank interiors just right now?

Take it easy and wait until ArmA2 is released. In the end both ArmA2 and OFP2 will be games not "all-in-one" simulations for real armed forces.

@All: Stop this personal attacks. That will get you nowhere.

[dslyecxi 23]

Quote[/b] ]Dsl, would you please stop to turn everything i said around, stop sucking-off what you "want to hear" from my posts and then use it for ridiculing/attacking me?

I haven't turned anything you've said around, not quite sure where you're getting that from. You're being quoted, that's all. I disagree with you as well - big surprise, isn't it?

Quote[/b] ]It's not "bla bla bla" because YOU said "bla bla bla", you are not a BIS decision-maker, nor a forums moderator, why do you always come like

"everything i say is correct, true, whatever - every other opinion is wrong/false/shit/whatever - i must appear to others in an "overbearing" way and destroy their opinions at every cost"

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I am likewise entitled to disagree or agree with that opinion, and the fact that I am disagreeing with you should not come as a surprise at this stage. As to whether you or I or anyone else is "more right", well - that's a judgment that every reader has to make for themselves.

Quote[/b] ]I know you are one of the guys which would be pleased with a pretty half-arse'd early spit-out game, but its time for you to understand that people around having IN FACT DIFFERENT OPINIONS on that.

I don't know what makes you think this is true, but it's completely off-base. The fact that I am not as naive as you should not be taken to mean that I'm happy with BIS sending out A2 unfinished. I wasn't happy with a lot of the things that went wrong with A1, and I've said as much plenty of times in the past. I'm not necessarily happy with every decision that has been shown re: A2. I'm not happy that 3d tank interiors aren't apparently a priority for BIS. However, that is distinctly different from me being naive enough to think that a petition at this stage means anything, or being naive enough to think that BIS doesn't have bigger fish to fry than 3d tank interiors.

Quote[/b] ]If you would read through dozens of Forums worldwide where they talk about Arma(2), you could read that people are wanting/demanding such features very badly - there 1000's of em.

Many many of them even say they will move to the competitor product (OFP2), if BIS doesn't make it correct this time.

I think it's really time for BIS to take action this time, hearing what the community wants and implement it.

Think about that for a minute. Is "3d tank interiors" the one killer feature that everyone wants, that everyone begs for, which will define whether they play A2 or not? I seriously doubt it. There are undoubtedly more important issues for everyone. I'm sure BIS reads feedback re: A1, and I'm sure they've done what they can, and continue to do what they can, to address the feedback. I just don't believe that "3d tank interiors" are even in the top 10 of things that they would get the best return on investment for addressing.

As to OFP2 - words, words, and more words.

Quote[/b] ]Didn't even Suma said in the 2007 Interviews, that they "programmed Arma1 in a other direction than what the potential customers/fans wanted" ?

Could you provide a citation of this?

Quote[/b] ]If it takes more time, then delay it another quarter - personally i'm very convinced that delivering a "complete" game which really feels like one (and missing interiors on MBT, while all other vehicles got some, feels really like something "half-hearted"), will be honored/payed off by the gaming-press reviews and thus resulting in even more sales for BIS.

Delaying a game by a quarter of a year to add a feature that not everyone will ever even notice is a pretty significant thing. Do you think that the publishers would accept that? Do you honestly believe that 3d tank interiors are something that the average game reviewer is going to give any kind of extra points for, let alone really notice?

I seriously doubt it. You're entitled to disagree, of course.

[mr.g-c 6]

Quote[/b] ]On-topic, it's not gonna happen with ArmA 2. And it won't happen. Simple as that. BIS won't be improving their franchise marginally(read: overhaul) in near or far future, period. I'd suggest look for your "hopes" elsewhere.

Why so pessimistic?

We can see great improvements on other sides at Arma2 too, so why not here?

Quote[/b] ]mr.g-c why you dont stop insisting that BIS is unaware about ArmA bugs and ArmA2 feature/eyecandy request?

BIS Developers are not Gods, just people like you and me, right?

Where is the Problem in making petitions/suggestions?

I don't lost hope in Arma2 (i probably like 90% of what i saw so far through screens and videos), but i want that BIS knows that there are people out there wanting some features/improvements like that - not only polished graphics.

Quote[/b] ]In the end both ArmA2 and OFP2 will be games not "all-in-one" simulations for real armed forces.

I think i really know this, but nevertheless were (in this case) Tank Interiors in their first product called OFP1.

Not deliver them with later products is in my environment where i live, called "A step back".

[raedor 8]

Well, petition is over, you guys failed to stay on-topic.

Closing.