Arma: The Concept

[Guest]

Hey fellas,

I just though of what i personally, think is a great idea. BIS seem to have alot of issues with their games upon release, especially so with the campaign and single player missions. For me personally, i do not touch the campaign, or the scenarios.

So anyway, BIS have taken a break from development of a new combat simulation, so i assume we'll be left for as long a time as we were with flashpoint. Not bad for modders, but maybe things will get a bit dull, or new games will be released.

Anyhow, my theory is this: Arma 2: Lite Edition. It bundles at say £20-30. You get exactly what you normally would, expect you get no shoddy campaign, and no buggy scenario missions. You get a game designed to be used solely for modders to create single player campaigns and missions, and solely for multiplayer.

You would get allot more to work with however. The game would come with allot of well documented mod tools, and allot of other features in the editor. Like, allot more features. It would be brilliant, no bad reviews, because face it, all the bad reviews are about campaign bugs. The game could be hugely successful i think. Well at least for people like me who don't enjoy campaigns in this type of game.

Allot of people are turned away by the campaign, but if you sell them something that is faultless, how can they complain?

Please feel free to elaborate and add/subtract from my idea.

By the way, this would be a stand alone title, not an addon for arma 2 etc. It could be the new arma 3 etc.

Edited August 12, 2009 by Guest

[Big Dawg KS 6]

So anyway, BIS have taken a break from development of a new combat simulation, so i assume we'll be left for as long a time as we were with flashpoint. Not bad for modders, but maybe things will get a bit dull, or new games will be released.

They haven't yet... there are still mod tools and patches they need to work on for ArmA 2.

[Guest]

They haven't yet... there are still mod tools and patches they need to work on for ArmA 2.

Yes, i mean they have taken a break from making a NEW game ;)

[Big Dawg KS 6]

Well, I wouldn't rule out CC:GM... who knows, maybe they will make it sort of like a "combat simulation" as you said. I'm looking forward to it at least.

[cjsoques 0]

I sorta am with that idea, not to steal your thread richiespeed but here's one I just came up with after reading your post:

I do not know if you recall guys but Falcon 4.0 was supposed to be the first in the series of the Virtual Battlefield. In this concept, Falcon 4.0 was supposed to just be a module of many to be incorporated into an over-arching military simulation.

For example, the next release might be a full-blown M1A2 sim, the next release, Infantry, the next Release F-14 with carrier ops, the next release various light vehicles.

Thus creating a number of high fidelity simulators all compatible with each other as modules. I absolutely loved this idea and of course it failed because Falcon 4.0 itself took forever to come to fruition.

Some kind of module/component release system like that would be pretty amazing..like an infantry pack, then light vehicle pack, then armor pack

If I recall DCS is doign that and coming out with an A-10 module after BlackShark that is all compatible

[Bad Pilot 0]

I vote approval of the concept (I'd buy the lean version), but I'm sure MP benefits from SP dev work, so even if you don't use it, you're playing the result of a lot of hard work in all dev areas.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

If BIS does continue the ArmA series, I want to see them go back to a Cold War theme, keep the feature list simple, and focus on a good story/single player campaign... much like OFP.

[The_Angry_Canadian 10]

Anyhow, my theory is this: Arma 2: Lite Edition. It bundles at say £20-30. You get exactly what you normally would, expect you get no shoddy campaign, and no buggy scenario missions. You get a game designed to be used solely for modders to create single player campaigns and missions, and solely for multiplayer.

Don't get me wrong on this. I like the game, I play it on multi-player all the time.

But, has it is, what you are describing is what we got. No Campaign ( there is so many bugs and troubles it is barely finished. ) and no Scenario game ( there is what ? 6 scenarios ? ).

[mr burns 132]

Your efforts to rescue ArmA sadly are nothing more than a drop on a hot stone (or "a drop in the ocean" as leo.org says).

The release of ArmA2 speaks for itself. Once again a half finished game with a few new (yet unfinished, badly tested/implemented) features &/or graphics.

The essentials are still missing. As you´ve said in one of your threads, any player who knows the series will recognize rather quickly that it´s still just OFP with new models & textures. Imagine a fully chromed Ford Model T - looks shiny from outside, but the seats smell rotten.

No Tank FCS, no FLIR, no sight windage, no MFD´s, etc.

And that´s just some of the all-time-favourites the community longed for.

The new AI routines don´t make up for that either because they still lack in basics - hyper sensed infantry for example is an absolute no go, or planes never climbing over a ceiling of 120m by themselves to do proper attack/strafing runs.

A cheaper version would´nt change any of those issues.

ArmA2 could´ve been everything we´ve been waiting for, but somehow the community wishlist was forgotten or BI´s office mascot (the dreaded fluffy bunny) ate it. We´ll never know :confused:

PS: Why i´m still here you ask?

Simple: No alternatives!

[LeadCommando65 10]

By the way, this would be a stand alone title, not an addon for arma 2 etc. It could be the new arma 3 etc.

I voted for other, cause I don't fully agree with you. I think your idea is really good.

But the "ArmA 2: Lite Edition" should be for ArmA2 and not a new game (certainly it has to be a standalone version, otherwise your idea won't make sense).

Oh, wait, your idea is already reality: Customers, who buy this game and play v1.0 actually get ArmA2 lite :eek: (sry i had to ...)

[Guest]

PS: Why i´m still here you ask?

Simple: No alternatives!

As sad as it is thats exactly the same case for me. And although dragon rising is out soon, i don't think it will have anywhere near the battlefield scale of this :(

[cjsoques 0]

As sad as it is thats exactly the same case for me. And although dragon rising is out soon, i don't think it will have anywhere near the battlefield scale of this :(

With you on that richiespeed,

The true test will be if you can cram 1700 AI into OFPDR and secondly if it will have the same awesomeness as your ARMA2 vids, then I'll get the game!

[Guest]

With you on that richiespeed,

The true test will be if you can cram 1700 AI into OFPDR and secondly if it will have the same awesomeness as your ARMA2 vids, then I'll get the game!

Thats what i am hoping on, i would like 2 different games to play! If i can get the game early and learn the editor, i'll try and cram loads and loads of AI in. Everyone sais how optimized the game is, but we'll see when i get my hands on it, if it can outperform arma!

[Takko 10]

It does have no potential.

Remembers me of "lite Version" of cars for example (The simplier version of the Dacia

Logan did just cost about 5500$) and they all failed.

People still prefered the more expensive version, to have e.g. Airbags,cooler, although they might never end up needing them.

And thats the right way. I wouldn't buy a "LitE" version without a campaign (although it

might be bug ridden the first days) although I might never play it.

[.kju 3245]

ArmA II was over ambitious and had a very strong focus on SP, while neglecting MP.

To be fair the campaign in COOP and Warfare you could count as MP, yet let alone

all the potential in the modules realized and working in MP would have been a base

for ten times the MP content and far more enjoyable.

A simple, solid, well told campaign is fine enough.

Same for SP and MP scenarios. BI OFP missions are still way more fun than A1 or A2.

Instead focus on playability, the whole MP area, making the game more accessible and polishing.

That done well and polished on that huge game and modding base is my vote.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

ArmA II was over ambitious

Kind of reflects the community doesn't it?

[.kju 3245]

Yep. Not saying it was wrong what BI tried to achieve or how ArmA II turns out so far.

People need to get some perspective. Real world isn't as some people want it to be.

After all Warfare seemed pretty successful in the 2nd phase of ArmA I, and a good

campaign was many peoples wish.

The combination of BI's ambition, and the level of expectation some got from these

early announcements and information of Game2 or from built out from other sources,

made em aim too high it seems.

After all if you take away the performance and stability problems, and ArmA II having

had a well playable, even COOP campaign, it would have been a very respectable

achievement.

The complexity behind the approach (dynamics, openness, complex AI, COOP, RTS)

is a huge challenge many people and companies have underestimated again and again.

At the same time BI and this forum community, while its only a small faction of the whole

playerbase, of course have very different goals and aims.

Maybe BI is quite happy with the sales, maybe not. Everyone will see by their coming

actions anyway how things develop no matter what path they choose.

Edited August 12, 2009 by kju

[{sas}stalker 10]

it has potential I think, but I'm reminded of the following joke

A kid asks his father for help on a writing assignment. "Dad, can you tell me the difference between potential and reality?"

His father looks up thoughtfully and says, "I'll demonstrate. Go ask your mother if she would sleep with Robert Redford for a million pounds. Then go ask your sister if she would sleep with Brad Pitt for a million pounds. Come back and tell me what you've learned."

The kid is puzzled, but asks his mother. "Mum, if someone gave you a million pounds, would you sleep with Robert Redford?"

"Don't tell your father, but, yes, I would."

He then goes to his sister's room. "Sis, if someone gave you a million pounds, would you sleep with Brad Pitt?"

She replies, "Omigod! Definitely!"

The kid goes back to his father. "Dad, I think I've figured it out. Potentially, we are sitting on 2 million pounds, but in reality, we're just living with two sluts.

It would potentially be great, but in reality it would just be the same again and we would be £30 lighter.

Edited August 12, 2009 by {SAS}Stalker

[alef 0]

Yes .

[whopper_with_cheese 0]

I sorta am with that idea, not to steal your thread richiespeed but here's one I just came up with after reading your post:

I do not know if you recall guys but Falcon 4.0 was supposed to be the first in the series of the Virtual Battlefield. In this concept, Falcon 4.0 was supposed to just be a module of many to be incorporated into an over-arching military simulation.

For example, the next release might be a full-blown M1A2 sim, the next release, Infantry, the next Release F-14 with carrier ops, the next release various light vehicles.

Thus creating a number of high fidelity simulators all compatible with each other as modules. I absolutely loved this idea and of course it failed because Falcon 4.0 itself took forever to come to fruition.

Some kind of module/component release system like that would be pretty amazing..like an infantry pack, then light vehicle pack, then armor pack

If I recall DCS is doign that and coming out with an A-10 module after BlackShark that is all compatible

I've been thinking kinda along these lines in a dream like world for some time...but taken 1 step further: All these companies get together to produce one big a** combat environment.

BIS focuses on the infantry/ground combat...improve immersion / spatial awareness with things such as hand signals, comms with proper signals (using correct templates for voice tx/have a signaller class/ radio trucks etc to extend range across the battlefield etc, the latter of which becomes priority for specops). Make tanks a little more sim like to start up/use. Give proper 'action on...' orders to your subordinates. Facility to draw on the map (like a 'mud model') to communicate DETAILED attack plan to your subordinates.

EagelDynamics/DCS with black shark/a10 etc provide the aerial interface. This will rid the game of knobheads who just jump in the 1st air vehicle they see, push the throttle to full and they're in the air shooting at anything that moves. Not any more...they have to sit and do their checklists which might take 10mins to get into the air.

Ubisoft (or whoever) provides Subs/Destroyers (a la Silent Hunter) as the naval combat/support snap-in (ok Uboats might be a little out of date...)

Sure it'd never happen, lots of companies getting together and agreeing on what the common framework their sim units will abide by to interact in the common battlespace. Not to mention the financials of it all! But it warms my heart to think that someday, just maybe, there could be a mega combat sim where all the vehicles are played like a sim...not grand theft auto.

Edited August 12, 2009 by whopper_with_cheese

[whisper 0]

Your efforts to rescue ArmA sadly are nothing more than a drop on a hot stone (or "a drop in the ocean" as leo.org says).

The release of ArmA2 speaks for itself. Once again a half finished game with a few new (yet unfinished, badly tested/implemented) features &/or graphics.

The essentials are still missing. As you´ve said in one of your threads, any player who knows the series will recognize rather quickly that it´s still just OFP with new models & textures. Imagine a fully chromed Ford Model T - looks shiny from outside, but the seats smell rotten.

No Tank FCS, no FLIR, no sight windage, no MFD´s, etc.

And that´s just some of the all-time-favourites the community longed for.

The new AI routines don´t make up for that either because they still lack in basics - hyper sensed infantry for example is an absolute no go, or planes never climbing over a ceiling of 120m by themselves to do proper attack/strafing runs.

A cheaper version would´nt change any of those issues.

ArmA2 could´ve been everything we´ve been waiting for, but somehow the community wishlist was forgotten or BI´s office mascot (the dreaded fluffy bunny) ate it. We´ll never know :confused:

PS: Why i´m still here you ask?

Simple: No alternatives!

Funny, none of your wishes are on my high list of missing things in ArmA2.

With the scope of the game, no one can claim to list "here is what the community wanted".

And that's exactly where the game can't be successfull enough

/getting a lil sick of the "I know Ze Truth and BI are knobs" gang, tbh

[th3flyboy 0]

I've been thinking kinda along these lines in a dream like world for some time...but taken 1 step further: All these companies get together to produce one big a** combat environment.

BIS focuses on the infantry/ground combat...improve immersion / spatial awareness with things such as hand signals, comms with proper signals (using correct templates for voice tx/have a signaller class/ radio trucks etc to extend range across the battlefield etc, the latter of which becomes priority for specops). Make tanks a little more sim like to start up/use. Give proper 'action on...' orders to your subordinates. Facility to draw on the map (like a 'mud model') to communicate DETAILED attack plan to your subordinates.

EagelDynamics/DCS with black shark/a10 etc provide the aerial interface. This will rid the game of knobheads who just jump in the 1st air vehicle they see, push the throttle to full and they're in the air shooting at anything that moves. Not any more...they have to sit and do their checklists which might take 10mins to get into the air.

Ubisoft (or whoever) provides Subs/Destroyers (a la Silent Hunter) as the naval combat/support snap-in (ok Uboats might be a little out of date...)

Sure it'd never happen, lots of companies getting together and agreeing on what the common framework their sim units will abide by to interact in the common battlespace. Not to mention the financials of it all! But it warms my heart to think that someday, just maybe, there could be a mega combat sim where all the vehicles are played like a sim...not grand theft auto.

Actually I would go with this if something like that were to happen:

BIS makes the infantry aspect, as that's what their good at

eSim games, makers of Steel Beasts, makes the armor aspect, as their Pro PE version of SB is the best at tank combat I've ever seen.

ED makes the air

Sonalysts and Ubi make the naval aspect

all of them would integrate on one battlefield, and as such, would be able to work together on MP.

[The_Angry_Canadian 10]

th3flyboy

That would be very nice but I would keep Ubi away. At some point, they did lot's of good stuff. Now, there are just another EA.

And MAN, what would I give to get ED on the flying part. That would be incredible. When I get in the KA-52, I can't stop thinking about the black shark ;)

[mr burns 132]

Funny, none of your wishes are on my high list of missing things in ArmA2.

With the scope of the game, no one can claim to list "here is what the community wanted".

And that's exactly where the game can't be successfull enough

/getting a lil sick of the "I know Ze Truth and BI are knobs" gang, tbh

Well as it seems i need to put up a small defensive line, right here :D

If you don´t think those points are valid/needed, feel free to add the ones that you want(ed).

I simply chose to quote these "all time favourites" because those are the ones that make a big difference in gameplay!

The very differences many of us have already been missing in ArmA1/OFP.

sight windage = nobody raises their sights above targets irl - what we´ve got in ArmA is especially bad for snipers who are forced to become 'masters of guessing' to be effective.

Tank FCS = AI can magically do it, but we (the players) have to use kentucky windage with some of the most advanced battlefield behemoths ever built by mankind. Smells fishy.

FLIR = same as above but with a pinch of "VBS2 has it, why not ArmA2".

MFD´s really aren´t particulary of my own interest as i can do w/o them, but still a render to texture routine is in demand by the community for ages.

What i totally forgot was differnet hit-zones and penetration values for tanks (or materials in gerneral), but you surely don´t miss that either so im just glad for only having to defend those four mentioned in the first post :p

edit:

Actually I would go with this if something like that were to happen:

BIS makes the infantry aspect, as that's what their good at

eSim games, makers of Steel Beasts, makes the armor aspect, as their Pro PE version of SB is the best at tank combat I've ever seen.

ED makes the air

Sonalysts and Ubi make the naval aspect

all of them would integrate on one battlefield, and as such, would be able to work together on MP.

Actually my wet dream consits of those teams all crammed together, working on the ultimate simulation game.

But you forgot the GTR2 & RBR makers to be responsible for cars lol

Edited August 13, 2009 by Mr Burns

[.kju 3245]

Simple - effort and prio.