Arma: The Concept

[weegee_101 0]

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

So am I, but I've come to accept the fact that this community will always have them. 90% of the people in that gang I would bet have absolutely no idea what kind of work it takes to put into a simulator or rather any large software product. BIS' OFP, ArmA, ArmA2 has the largest scope of any simulator available... period. They're not going to have time to do everything, but they do a pretty damn good job at what they do.

The truth is, if they put in the extra hours to actually implement all of those features, then people would be complaining that BIS is taking too long. Then, after those features come in, people will complain about little nuances. People say "well don't concentrate on graphics so much" yet those are the same people who would be complaining, "I wish there were better graphics." Its asinine.

Personally, I'm sick of it. The attitude of this community is absolutely horrific. There are people who defend the whatever game BIS has out at the moment blindly (even when its a stupid bug that everyone knows is a bug), then there are people who just complain no matter what. This whole bloody community is either black or white, and because of that they ignore the fact that BIS has actually done a better job than any of them could do.

Here's a fact boys and girls, BIS has the BEST combined arms simulator available. Period. They also make the ONLY combined arms simulator available, you have problems with it, then make your own.

/rant

[mrcash2009 0]

It does seem to me that the "sales" 3element is a "front end" campaign, but when you dig a little deeper its really is just a massive sandbox with a campaign as some icing.

I naturally went from being new, to not liking the campaigns to realising this thing is just far more than that, and in some ways should be marketed the other way around.

It gets units out the door but the initial folk who assume its purely an SP thing will and have started to die away and the main people who dig deep know its a gem.

I think they should have scenarios but also supply lots of BIS missions, but make them so they are literally noted as "how to" examples, both supplying SP pbo and then also bundling the mission files un pbo's. Imagine it like a massive teaching tool. The time taken out of campaign to focus on this could also mean they would have tutoring video time too online and out the box supplied and the focus on small missions would make them spick and span (and of course time on the engine and bugs/optimisation). I would have no issue with this what so ever and I think this would put BIS into a great position and really advertise Arma for what it really is.

That said, if they need the sales push then I would suggest and have done in another post to outsource the campaign to a team that are JUST dedicated to making the missions with the tools and are not half fixing the thing as well .. source dedicated long term mission scripters and modders from the community to create the campaign (if that was feasible).

Then again after saying all of this .. isnt that what VBS is already? Hmmmm.

Edited August 13, 2009 by mrcash2009

[Second 0]

Here's a fact boys and girls, BIS has the BEST combined arms simulator available. Period. They also make the ONLY combined arms simulator available, you have problems with it, then make your own.

/rant

-Bah-

Edited August 13, 2009 by Second

[-RIP- Luhgnut 10]

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

Heck, I played the FIRST Falcon back on a 386xt machine. Falcon was supposed to be modular from the first release. I like the plug in modular idea, and always have. But the releases have to come at regular intervals and bug free or the bugs continue on into the next plug in then it becomes a balancing act. I remember during Falcon 3, they were so far behind in bugs, the developers came outright and said (on CompuServ mind you.) that if they keep going after bugs, they won't be able to do anything additional for the virtual battlefield. Well they never did. Just a case in point.

[Heatseeker 0]

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!

Just because a game is optimised doesnt mean one should go around creating unoptimised missions. 75 to 150 a.i. units is more than enough to make a good mission, i'd rather play a good mission than a real time COD mess. You shouldnt consider a game "unoptimised" if you push it over the limits.

Operation Flashpoint had plenty of good missions and they didnt use that much a.i. they just used it well.

To be more on topic.

BIS made good campaigns with CWC and Resistance, i dont know why they cant make good campaigns or SP missions anymore...

[Big Dawg KS 6]

To be more on topic.

BIS made good campaigns with CWC and Resistance, i dont know why they cant make good campaigns or SP missions anymore...

I'd say it has something to do with too many new features...

If you look at the CWC and Resistance campaigns, they're very simple. Resistance did offer a few new features but they still kept it simple. And it was fun.

[jw custom 56]

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.

Ahhh Falcon 4.0 i REALLY loved that game, still have it :)

[weegee_101 0]

I'd say it has something to do with too many new features...

If you look at the CWC and Resistance campaigns, they're very simple. Resistance did offer a few new features but they still kept it simple. And it was fun.

I totally agree, but we have nobody to blame but ourselves here. Just take a look at the ArmA2: Wish List on the biki. Almost all of the new features we've got are included in that list. Some that really stand out to me are the one's mentioning wound treating and MEDEVAC (First Aid Modules anyone?) and zGuba's request for a CoC-like command engine (High Command Module).

Game development (and honestly all Software Development) is a no-win situation for developers. They either take too long to 'get it done', or they don't get all the features the customers want. Either way they have an equally amount of unhappy customers.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

I totally agree, but we have nobody to blame but ourselves here.

It's as if you're in my mind. Glad to see others who realize this.

[The_Angry_Canadian 10]

Game development (and honestly all Software Development) is a no-win situation for developers. They either take too long to 'get it done', or they don't get all the features the customers want. Either way they have an equally amount of unhappy customers.

Well, for my part, I dont mind them taking too long. I dont think releasing a half-done campaing is better than releasing no campaing at all.

Look at blizzard. They announce something, take forever to release it, but when they do, it is usually very polished. I prefer dumping my money on a finished product than a bugged one.

release the "requested" feature, but only if they are actually working.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

Look at blizzard. They announce something, take forever to release it, but when they do, it is usually very polished. I prefer dumping my money on a finished product than a bugged one.

I wouldn't even try to compare Blizzard to BIS... I mean I doubt Blizzard ever has to worry about funding.

[The_Angry_Canadian 10]

I wouldn't even try to compare Blizzard to BIS... I mean I doubt Blizzard ever has to worry about funding.

Now they dont, but even before the WoW era, they managed to release good products. I know they "money" factor is important. I suppose you have to weight between long term client satisfaction and quick money making.

[MehMan 0]

Like WoW was without bugs and preformance issues.

And yes, there are many many people who can run the game great, but the deal is that they don't come on the forum bitching. So if you think everybody in the troubleshooting forum is everybody who plays the game you are oh so very wrong.

[Dead3yez 0]

I voted other. Some points are good, some I disagree with.

Logic is flawed, BI will receive the same amount of bad reviews/complaints from the same people that care enough about the campaign and to have bought the full version. I'm not entirely sure I'm perceiving this concept correctly, but selling a 'lite' version of the game for less money doesn't really seem like an entirely great market strategy. Why offer a cheaper version when you know that they (us) will buy the more expensive version if they had no choice anyway.

OT:

'All those who hate Dragon Rising, remember this: I get to play 2 great games, you only get one.'

Don't count your chickens before they hatch. ;)

[weegee_101 0]

Look at blizzard. They announce something, take forever to release it, but when they do, it is usually very polished. I prefer dumping my money on a finished product than a bugged one.

That is only Blizzard post World of Warcraft. Nobody seems to remember that Diablo and Warcraft 2 had a slew of problems when they came out. Then Diablo 2, upon release, while a great game that definitely was popular, also had a slew of problems that would have been avoidable had they just taken longer. All three of those games had regular development times.

World of Warcraft finances Blizzard completely. They've paid off their server farms a long time ago. Maintenance is a steady but predictable draw of funds, which makes it easy for them to budget most of the money they earn into their other games.

However, that all said, games are far more complex than they ever have been before. One of the major reasons that the industry has moved to DirectX in fact (just for an example) is because OpenGL refused to create newer and easier abstractions to reduce development time on graphics, giving developers more time to concentrate on other features. It doesn't help that developers are expected to have the latest and greatest graphics capabilities when they release. Then you add in the growing complexity of AI programming (the design practices of which haven't changed since the 1990s......) and other features, especially the complexity involved in making a simulator at all, and you've got less time to concentrate on individual bits since marketing, publishing, and customers all want the product released in the SAME amount of time it would have been in 1999. If they don't make the time frame, their budget is cut and they go the way of the dodo. Its happened to many companies over the past few years, including high-profile ones like Interplay (who got lucky and are still in business with rising profits).

You see these same kind of discussions on every single game forum out there after release. This isn't BIS' problem, this is the industries problem.

[MehMan 0]

This isn't BIS' problem, this is the industries problem.

Finally, somebody who makes sense!

[Big Dawg KS 6]

This isn't BIS' problem, this is the industries problem.

And just one of many...

[-RIP- Luhgnut 10]

I used to be in the video game wholesale business. What amazed me going to the (once then) CES then E3 shows, was the real smoke and mirrors game (no pun) being played.

For example Acclaim was showing off way back then a game called Alien vs. Predator. We all know this one (remember this has been a while.) I'm in their booth and back on a monitor is this awesome game running, AVP. On the bottom of the monitor it said "work in progress". I mean this thing looks over the top good. Time passes. I keep checking up on this title. By asking some friends, I found out what I was watching was a "conceptual video". All pre-rendered and running off laser disk.

Same show. Atari booth, The big deal was that Jaguar P.O.S. console. On the TV screen is a video of Star Wars playing and in the little case was a Jaguar with a CD/DvD Player on top just spinning like mad. I asked the dude in the booth.. "Hey that video is being drivin off that DVD player?" "Sure is... first to have a DVD player as an accessory, that's why the Jaguar is revolutionary." So my partner talks to him a bit, and I slip behind the machine, and a video cable is coming out of the monitor and going down.... follow it..... down...... NOT into the Jaguar..... down.... into.... that .... LaserDisk Player!" Ugh!

Same show, Atari booth. Some younger peoples are playing the different games and going "Wow", "Awesome", and bobbing around like they are really getting into the game. One guy is standing there and he's trying to play this horrific basketball game. He looks bored. I asked him, "you don't seem too excited about this one." He said, I'm serious, He said "One more hour and I get to go home." ?????? "What you mean". "Atari pays us to play these games, we are all temps, but they suck and I have to play this garbage 8 hours a day all week."

I know of some others but won't bore you.

Point being in all this, some company play a very deceptive game. They do it to dealers, investors, distributors are doing to designers and visa-versa. You know that some companies are doing to their consumers. At least in the console market, they really don't care what the end user actually buys. It's the distributors and wholesalers and Best Buys of the world where their money comes from. What ever it takes for a distributor at these shows to ink a deal for something he just saw being demo'd by some awesome "booth-babe", is where it's at. They use any means possible to get a title sold. Once they sell it to them, who cares if it sits on their shelf or not. Most distributors couldn't tell a hot title from a fish. It's a wonder we get anything at all. :eek:

Where my business failed was that I was determined to only sell "good stuff". Well there wasn't that much "good stuff" coming out. Maybe one title in ten was good. If I didn't sell the garbage, my business failed. I was forced to buy all the crap and resell it because we couldn't survive on one out of ten good titles. It's very hard for a developer to short-cut the wholesale market, and find a good distribution outlet that won't screw them over. The publishers are the ones that make the money in this game. And I know it's tough for BIS to navigate these waters, being over-seas dealing with a whacked out US market makes it tougher.

Edited August 14, 2009 by [RIP] Luhgnut

[Big Dawg KS 6]

Meh, at least there are still some good, honest devs around. ;)

[-RIP- Luhgnut 10]

I have a huge ton of respect for ANY independent developer that goes straight to their public. Or as close to it as possible. Friend of mine developed a "click and explore" Myst type game. Distributed through (won't name them) a large company that had a couple smaller companies they owned for distribution of non-mainstream titles.

Game sold for $29.99 retail.

Game wholesale to retailers $10.00

He made $1.85 cents per copy.

Didn't sell well in US market, but Europe it was in the top ten for like 4-5 months.

I asked him if he was ever going to develop another title. He said "Shoot me in the head first."

[MehMan 0]

Publishers have always been the evil and continue to be in any industry. Music, game and film. Leeches who do the least ammount of work but take the most ammount of money.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

Publishers have always been the evil and continue to be in any industry. Music, game and film. Leeches who do the least ammount of work but take the most ammount of money.

And unfortunately they are the primary source of funding for most devs. :confused_o:

[weegee_101 0]

Luhgnut;1405602']I have a huge ton of respect for ANY independent developer that goes straight to their public.

Same here. It just frustrates me that you see the independent developers forums' date=' it doesn't matter who they are, fill up with just crap "this game suckzors" as soon as a game is released.

Publishers have always been the evil and continue to be in any industry. Music, game and film. Leeches who do the least ammount of work but take the most ammount of money.

That's not always true. There are some really good Publishers out there, and then there are some bad ones. Usually the good ones are the ones who also develop their own games, however there are exceptions. Publishers usually handle the marketing, distribution, and funding. These three are usually the headaches for the independents.