Complexity Arma's greatest advantage?

[walker 0]

Hi all

One of the greatest things the original OFP that BIS made gave me was complexity.

I was sick of prisons for my mind; in the form of corridors and invisible walled shoe-boxes, and of narrative game structures that required me to jump through hoops in a particular dressage fashion like a trained circus dog.

Complexity is what BIS have continuously added to their Real Virtuality engine.

Even today we see geometry affected particles, increasing numbers and affinities of factions, new forms of transportation with the addition of trains; The Real Virtuality engine has always had the most complex transport capability of any game or simulation.

So the obvious question:

Is complexity Arma's greatest advantage?

If so in what ways other new ways can ArmA's complexity be increased?

Kind Regards walker

[sparks50 0]

A (at least half)simulation of weapons hardware/software? As long as theres an easy mode for those who just wants a quick game, it shouldn't scare anyone away.

[Scrub 0]

If 'actions speak louder than words' (translate as: Player activity and attitude affect factions as much as the decision made in a conversation dialog), then there is the opportunity to earn trust, break it, and even have the different factions morality to be brought into view.

The ability to change the campaign and MP environment with placement and construction. As much as the destruction is permanant, so to should be the (re) construction.

Just some ruminations on complexity...

[Uziyahu--IDF 0]

The physics could be made a lot more complex. In the recent NAPA video, the explosion looked a tad sorry when the concussion failed to rip the sheet metal roof off of the warehouse and send it flying into the air. (The upwards concussion is usually the strongest in any explosion, because the air is thinner as you go higher, so up is the path of least resistance for the pressure.)

[NeMeSiS 11]

EDIT: No, i am wrong.

[POTS 0]

new forms of transportation with the addition of trains;

AFAIK there is just a railroad and no working trains in default ArmA2.

watch the new video

[JdB 151]

Wars/conflicts are never one sided issues, which most games portray it as being. By adding multiple (more than 2) sides (factions) to ArmA2, I feel that BIS has taken a large step towards recreating the complexity that is modern war (of course it will also depend on how this works out in the campaign). It's no longer just a matter of "hey, he's not wearing our uniform = shoot".

[Laqueesha 474]

Wars/conflicts are never one sided issues, which most games portray it as being. By adding multiple (more than 2) sides (factions) to ArmA2, I feel that BIS has taken a large step towards recreating the complexity that is modern war (of course it will also depend on how this works out in the campaign). It's no longer just a matter of "hey, he's not wearing our uniform = shoot".

Just the fact that you can play on different sides (Operation Flashpoint 1, ArmA 1) is great, because you can see multiple point of views.

Most games you only get to play as one side, but in OFP 1 and ArmA 1, you get to play on both sides of a conflict.

[Alex72 1]

Wars/conflicts are never one sided issues, which most games portray it as being. By adding multiple (more than 2) sides (factions) to ArmA2, I feel that BIS has taken a large step towards recreating the complexity that is modern war (of course it will also depend on how this works out in the campaign). It's no longer just a matter of "hey, he's not wearing our uniform = shoot".

Well said.

The campaign seems to be funnier and funnier as time go by. And the trains, if they are ambience for atmosphere that can be activated/deactivated via LOGIC like the civilians - im happy. Dont need it to be drivable or anything like that. Just seems cool to do a specops mission with civi's and trains chochooing by doing their thing. Not knowing there is something going on. Might be insurgents having hostages in a town. You need to get in and extract the hostages and take the insurgents out without civilian casualties. And seeing/hearing a train pass by in the distance will just empower the feeling that a normal life is going on. Awesome.

UAV without FLIR - yeah thats another story. Hopefully well get it in form of an easter egg. On the other hand - wouldnt that be a competition techology vs OFP2 to show off in videos/images? Maybe, maybe not.

Alex

[.kju 3245]

Is complexity Arma's greatest advantage?

No.

The gameplay, scale, possibilities and relatively easy (but very

time consuming / time inefficient) modding.

The complexity of the game is one of the negatives.

[An-225 0]

Is complexity Arma's greatest advantage? Yes, considering the size of the map, the amount of vehicles and their operation, I think it is a great change from CoD and BF. Bearing in mind, that it is simply impossible to recreate every small thing in regards to vehicle operation (it takes 9 months for the developers of DCS to release new aircraft).

In this case, I fear the community will bring down Armed Assaults complexity with crappy auto-air support and artillery scripts.

The complexity is also what allows Armed Assault to be so realistic - and not a corridor shooter like CoD 4.

On the subject of UAVs - I would like to see how they will simulate the Pchela launch.

[wamingo 1]

Is complexity Arma's greatest advantage?

Yes.

Complex doesn't necessarily mean difficult. Like a watch has complex mechanics, yet it's easy to operate.

In arma's case, complexity creates possibility, variety, challenge, freedom, etc. The spice of life.

[11aTony 0]

I guess, yea. I love ArmA becouse it is "professional". You can set up/configure almost anything unlike simple run & gun games like FarCry2 or something. Just keep it detailed and it will live for ever.

[Commando84 0]

yes, the ofp/ arma series have always tried to go outside to little box and inspire people to do a little more.

Arma 2 seems to go even further.

[celery 8]

No. The realistic gameplay is.

[Pyronick 21]

No. The realistic gameplay is.

I'd say the versatility. It's not just a campaign. If you properly use the mission editor it becomes a sandbox environment you can manipulate.

The fact that friends can join this environment gives this game a huge advantage.

Other than that it's a very realistic tactical shooter/skirmish-level warfare simulator.

And I believe it can be used as a flora/fauna simulator aswell with the addition of L-systems using BIS' Linda middleware.

[Baff1 0]

I think if a game feels complex, no matter whether or not it actually is, but if it feels complex, the developers are missing a trick.

Games should feel intuative. Complexity should not be noticeable.

Learning curves should be gentle.

I think this is a design principle for interfaces and interaction.

[walker 0]

Hi all

Life is complex and people cope with that. Or Darwin deals with them.

No game has ever come close to the complexity of life.

In fact the Real Virtuality engine is the only simulation that has come any where close to simulating the complexity of Life and it just scratches the surface in a few areas.

The problem with interface design is not complexity it whether or not the interface has hooks that humans can place on it linked to their existing experience.

If the complexity mimics human experience it stops being complex and becomes as easy as walking down the street in Madrid or Paraiso.

Kind Regards walker

[LJF 0]

The complexity is not the greatest advantage, I'd say the editors, moddability and scale would be the top 3, but that said, I recently played ACEMOD for ARMA and it was incredible, the extra options just made it feel ... right. Like placing tripwires for claymores and using flares, even the wound system was great. The more you can DO the more interesting the game is, the more combinations that are possible, the more diverse the experiences and the greater the "freshness" of the game. Also, the more in a game the longer it STAYS fresh. CoD gets old REALLY fast. There are only really a few things that can happen.

With extra options, ArmA becomes more "intelligent", it's no longer a game of the mice ... but a game of the minds.

[maxqubit 1]

Life is complex and people cope with that.

Life is extremely simple ... in fact you don't have to think about life at all ... ask any kid

So, therefor a realistic game is extremely SIMPLE ... because you don't have to think about it, you just apply what you allready know and you don't have to 'learn gameplay rules'

Baff1 got it right (imho)

Quote[/b] ]Games should feel intuative. Complexity should not be noticeable.

If you hear a gunshot, you look for cover ... nothing could be more simple:)

[Scrub 0]

Well, of course, I'd want that simplicity too. Now here comes part of what Walker is talking about.

In corridor shooters you:

A- Run like hell away until you run into a wall and are cornered.

B- Chuck a nade

C- Hold/advance for guns

D- Hope one of your team mates is more (homo/sui)'cidal than you are and bunnyhops first.

In BIS's games you:

A- Flank with half your team while the other half suppresses.

B- Fall back, (miles away) setting up ambushes as you are pursued.

C- Call in CAS.

D- Arty them.

F- Steal a car and run for base.

G- Maybe in ArmA 2 you can surrender, or otherwise dialog your way out.

H- Do what I do and have a radio trigger to drop a truck on them from 50m up... totally comical and appropriate, for Monty Python (hey they don't have any dangerous bananas here!

I-....As much as your mind can concieve.

[ProfTournesol 956]

If complexity means that the game, ie the AI and the environment are sufficiently unpredictable that i'm surprised while playing hundred times my prefered or own made missions, so i'd say YES.

That would imply :

- that the environment (civies or nature) would interfere in my plans, (i still remember the pleasure i add in first OFP campaigns when i escaped using a tractor...but i'd like the environment could interfere negatively too)

- that soldiers from my side or from the other sides will not always react as expected, and i don't only mean "will they flee or not" as today : will they surrender, will they rush stupidely against the enemy, will they kill civilians, will they hide waiting for the fights to stop, will they refuse obeing even if not flying, will they entrench and wait for a counterattack etc.

- that vehicles or weapons aren't "100% top quality never breaking down / jamming"

- that myself would surprise myself, that i could be ill, tired etc.

[walker 0]

If you hear a gunshot, you look for cover ... nothing could be more simple:)

Hi all

maxqubit your very own example is one of the most mathematically complex things done in a computer. Second only to things like sight and AI movement in complex terrain.

If you have done much programming you would understand that modeling sound is extremely complex, even for a human user to understand and react to; never mind the AI, where the complexity shoots through the roof.

BUT

I agree with you that the user interface should be intuitive.

The secret to that as I said is for actions in the simulated world to copy experiences the user has already had. This is exampled in the principles of metaphor and mimicry.

BUT that is not directly what I am talking about when I am cheering ArmA's complexity.

Scrub is right in his assessment, I am cheering the complexity of routes to achieve goals and the complexity of said goals.

As I said the Real Virtuality engine is the first simulation/game to stop being a prison for the users mind.

ArmA II is a game that will continue to free the user from the constraints of the simplistic and welcome them to a more complex and realistic world.

Kind Regards walker

[Second 0]

In ArmA/OFP i just shoot idiotic AI's while they run to my sights. My AI mates can watch my flanks. basic principle is "once it gets spotted it gets killed". That is pretty much about it. As immersive as livefire-exercises using pop-up targets which are visible most of the time.  

In corridor shooters this happens also, but AI tries to preserve it's life bit longer and is bit more entertaining opponent as it makes it self harder target with ability to use cover and movement well. Suppression model adds interesting options as well, such as better working fire and movement while on assault... This already gets closer to something like two-sided Miles-training against immersive opponents.  

I remember in Vietcong how i was supposed to clear hill from dug-in enemy. My men hiding behind covers, firing sometimes, shouting something, i throwing hand grenades into trench and taking snap shots at muzzleflashes but mostly hiding behind tree. No question of going forward before there would be hole in enemy defenses... Natrually that ended when enemy flanked and took care of my whole team Or planning my arty-missions and advance of my team.

If ArmA2 firefights would get closer to "Corridor shooter complex" than "ArmA complex" it's nice. With mission editor and scripting commands one could create miracles, which most shooters (not all thou) just don't allow to happen.

ArmA's strong point is definedly the thing that it allows mission editors to make pretty much anything (player gets what he gets then)... If complexity of firefights would get better, it would indeed be classic once again.

[walker 0]

I remember in Vietcong how i was supposed to clear hill from dug-in enemy. My men hiding behind covers, firing sometimes, shouting something, i throwing hand grenades into trench and taking snap shots at muzzleflashes but mostly hiding behind tree. No question of going forward before there would be hole in enemy defenses... Natrually that ended when enemy flanked and took care of my whole team Or planning my arty-missions and advance of my team.

Hi all

To Second; the problem with games like Vietcong is their lack of complexity. Because their AI is scripted all I have to do to be beat them is learn their script. For corridor shooters it is an intrinsically short script. Most corridor shooters last no more than a week at the most two weeks. COD4 was only a couple of Days.

And no corridor shooter will ever match an Open Game Simulator; it is just a case of mathematics and economics.

Every reaction in a corridor shooter has to be scripted by a human. Every move, shot and duck. And then each has to be bug tested FSMs help to cut the technical bugs but do not stop strategic and tactical errors of integration into the whole set of scripts; each of those has to be ironed out by days of laborious play testing.

Unlike where you have a generalised AI as in the Real Virtuality Engine where errors tend to be generalised and the same error turns up across a range of similar circumstances thus when you fix it in one you fix it in all. In corridor shooters where the AI is algorithmic each error is specific to it own circumstance not only that but errors can cascade you fix an error in a duck at one spot it causes the timing for the run for the next action to change so fixing the error creates new errors.

So as you increase complexity in such games you increase workload and therefor cost. Hence to cut costs you try to copy and paste algorithms and maps. A cover of a tree in stage one becomes a barrel ins stage two. The flow of the mission is reversed in stage 3 etc. Pretty soon into a corridor shooter you tag that and see that the AI is just repeating itself time after time after time.

That is the key reason corridor shooters have no re-playability. They become a button masher left, left, right, right, right, grenade, duck, crawl, stand, run, shoot, jump, reload, hide; repeat, script. The player instead of being a human being becomes the biochemical part of the algorithm performing its part of the script.

The player has become just another cog in the Turing machine.

Like I say I want my mind to be free. I will not play games that are prisons for my mind.

Kind Regards walker