What happened to the Ofp way?

[Guest]

I'm going to be quick here.

I've moved on to modding other games, so my post is only so relevant..

But what happened?

Since when did graphical improvements and various ai improvements replace overall gameplay quality?

Comon.

This has been going on since the release of the first Arma...

Oblivion is a great example of what happens when great gameplay quality is put into a game.. it lasts like forever..

I loved Ofp, and still do.. especially with FFUR installed, its awesome.. And I get all of this extremely well done content put in to play with.

I was quite a bit dissapointed with Arma 1, it's mission content was quickly thrown together, and further more, I had to get a new video card just to play it decently..

Now we move to Arma 2, and apparently the requirements are even steeper?? But.. the graphics are amazing?

Since when did this sort of game go from being glorified as being amazing due to the great game play and immersion.. to.. "the grapchics are amazing"..?? And hence.. I have to buy yet another new video card to get 20 fps? And further more, I hear.. once again.. the actual in game mission content is terrible??

When do these companies learn?

Look at Wow.. Been around way too long ,draws millions.. graphics suck..

You guys could have stuck to a medium.. keeping the graphics to around the quality of Arma 1, and spent giant time and effort making huge amazing content in game for people, and you could have released multitudes of expansions.. which just would increase the awesome fun stuff to enjoy..

But instead.. you chose to pick 'graphics' and increased ai behaviour.. when all the while, few were complaining in the first place.. And now so many are.. because they don't have the quality content anymore that we all loved in Ofp.. and worse.. so many are getting such mass lag.. we need to spend hundreds of dollars just to play a game that is still missing it's quality in game content..

COMON BIS.

It's not about graphics dangit. It's not about perfectly functioning ai.. It's about putting awesome content into a well developed engine that knocks peoples socks off.. that makes them feel like they are truly in a world wide struggle for life.. etc.. etc.. Ofp did it, and it's still.. *still* fun to play through the campaign again.. What Arma 1 and Arma 2 is doing.. simply enhancing primarily the visual aspects, adding some additional ai functioning.. and then giving on top of that terrible in game content.. expecting the modding community to make up for it.. expecting tons of folks to spend tons of money just to run their game..

If you would just do it right.. and put huge effort into mission content like in Ofp.. you could probably charge us 50 US bucks per expansion and we'd all buy it.. (well maybe not everyone.. but I sure would :D ).. Heck you could pump out tons of huge expansions that provided TONS of new content, from great SP missions with voicings and all to.. huge MP missions with huge immersive and long lasting mp game play..

But it may be too late now anyhow.

I for one know that this has always been sort of a 'back of the shelf' type of game.. but.. BUT.. what kicked everything off was Ofp.. and it wasn't because of the graphics.. it was because of the CONTENT.. And it's why I still play the campaign over and over.. it's just surreal..

Modders will never make up for the lack of great quality content.. because we do not have the funds nor time to provide what a major gaming company can provide.. and expecting that they will fill the gap equals : The major release is a failure.. which is hugely important.. it's what people see when the game is first released, and talk about.. And second.. people that are somewhat dedicated to the game hang around and wait for many months for mods that attempt to fill the gap.. but are only able to do so much considering the fact no one gets paid for it..

In the end, Content is what sells a game.. not graphics.. not enhanced ai.. content.. What that means is : What we as the players get from our experience in playing your game.. Do we get immersed and feel like we were there? Or do we feel like we just took part in a cheaply made, and thrown out the door game?

Imo.. In many ways.. Graphics come LAST.

Lastly, not bashing Bis. But I am, and have been dissapointed in the direction change they made. I feel strongly, considering the type of game they are producing, they have been charging in the wrong direction for the sort of community that is following the game for some time now since they focused on the first Arma..

My post likely will change nothing, but it's how I view things here.

Out.

[dmarkwick 261]

Oblivion is a great example of what happens when great gameplay quality is put into a game.. it lasts like forever.

You've got to be kidding right? Take the perfect fantasy game template (Morrowind) and..... just screw it. Talk about selling out gameplay for better graphics - you just quoted a perfect example of that.

Seriously. A game that has a built-in walkthrough. Every step of the way you're told where to go (people "got lost" in Morrowind apparently. Boo-hoo, that IS gameplay), what you think, who to talk to, where to go next, what a terrible game. All opponents are scaled to your current level, no area is out of bounds, no reason to level up, for everything rubber-bands around you to maintain *cof* "Gameplay" *cof*. That game is made for console players. Easy to digest half hour slices of a better game. Sure you can mod that stuff out, but the fact remains that the games central core is built around that handholding idea, and could never really get true gameplay again.

I tried to like that game, really, I did. I tried for about 3 months. But after all that time I had to come to the conclusion that Morrowind represented the game I wanted to play, not that stunted horror of a sequel. So I went back to that, problem solved great gameplay.

Moral. If all you want in a sequel is exactly the same thing as before - don't waste money, just play the thing before. IMO natch.

Edited September 20, 2009 by DMarkwick

[andersson 285]

I dont see whats lost in arma, arma2... Same gameplay possibilities as ofp but more features and better looking..

[Deadfast 43]

...and you could have released multitudes of expansions..

DLC, yay

(no, not really...)

It's not about perfectly functioning ai..

Congrats, you're the first person ever to say that he doesn't care about ArmA's AI :)

[dm 9]

I'm going to be quick here.

[biggest post i've seen in months] ...

Out.

:rolleyes:

Anyway, its gone "all" graphics graphics graphics! Because sadly thats what sells games these days. WoW is the exception which proves the rule (and is almost as old as Resitance)

In this world of pretty things and instant gratifcation, games have to look pretty or they dont do well. Simple as.

Also, coding the latest graphics standards is much easier than creating ground breaking AI, so its the logical first step (even if an undesireable one for the hardcore fanbase)

[trickster1982 10]

Well im playing the game just fine on what would probably be now classed as a mid range system being 2 years old,some of the community made missions are on a par with anything I played in OFP & the graphics are indeed gorgeous (although not as pretty as far cry 2 but thats a different kettle of fish).

The main campaign starts well but quickly goes downhill which is a shame as the campaign in OFP was spot on, but i expect we'll get some good community campaigns eventually!

One thing I would like to see though is BIS releasing some single mission packs rather than just leaving it up to the community,theres some great community ones but ive played a few bad ones too,so maybe BIS could feed our appetite for good missions by releasing a load for us?surely it wouldnt take them long to do seen as they're all well up on how to use the editor :)

[lee_h._oswald 0]

It's important to have good graphics in a game today, because: graphics sells... but it's okay and game company's need the money to stay alive.

What I really don't understand is the badly optimized engine and the constant low fps problem(again).

Another thing is "missing features", the community asked for since OFP.

- Why can't we shoot from moving vehicles?

- Why can't we dive under water? (Navy Seals, U-Boat warfare, etc.)

- Why is there no transport system for: vehicles/ammo/fuel/etc.

- Fastroping from helicopters.

- Two optics on weapons like G36 and many other modern weapons today.

- Better control of grenade throwing.(think about CQB)

- 'add other important things right here'

My last hope is OP Arrowhead. I'm going to waste my money on this to give BIS a last chance. If they fix the most important bugs and add some needed features I'm happy.

If not, well, good bye then.

MfG Lee

[Zipper5 74]

One misconception that almost everyone has made about ArmA II is that there was obviously a huge amount of effort put into the campaign by the designers. If you were to ever look at exactly how they did it all, you'd be quite impressed. It's fairly hefty and complex stuff, with some very impressive scripting and design. Unfortunately, it's the engine's ability to handle it all that lets it down, along with the crappy voice acting...

[whisper 0]

It's important to have good graphics in a game today, because: graphics sells... but it's okay and game company's need the money to stay alive.

What I really don't understand is the badly optimized engine and the constant low fps problem(again).

Another thing is "missing features", the community asked for since OFP.

- Why can't we shoot from moving vehicles?

- Why can't we dive under water? (Navy Seals, U-Boat warfare, etc.)

- Why is there no transport system for: vehicles/ammo/fuel/etc.

- Fastroping from helicopters.

- Two optics on weapons like G36 and many other modern weapons today.

- Better control of grenade throwing.(think about CQB)

- 'add other important things right here'

My last hope is OP Arrowhead. I'm going to waste my money on this to give BIS a last chance. If they fix the most important bugs and add some needed features I'm happy.

If not, well, good bye then.

MfG Lee

Your opinion, tbh.

I couldn't care less about most of the things you listed, and I'm pretty sure many would too, and many would have way different priorities.

Now, if BI would simply allow addon download from game server when needed, all your problem listed are gone.

The true issue is the 1st point you mentioned, performance

[lwlooz 0]

Hello,

I think the "Ofp way" either died a long time ago or it was just something we made up in our heads.

I think the point that is made here is and something that I generally think to agree with that game design should consider all aspects of a game.

Something that due to various unknown reasons (bad input ? ,bad priorities ?,no money ?,lack of motivation ?) has neither happened in my opinion in both Arma and Arma2. It is all rather random.

I do wonder at what view distances,with what object numbers on the screen we could play with if we stayed at slightly improved OFP style graphics.

Not to speak of that user created models would be far easier to make I would imagine.

How much do the high-poly high-texture models actually contribute to the fun you have while playing?

Not to speak of there are actual graphics fashion gimmicks like HDR and bloom that destroy the atmosphere far more than they add to it.

On the other hand tho, implementing new graphics technology (and may it be as utterly useless as HDR) and optimizing the graphics engine probably go hand in hand , so it is something that had to be done anyways I guess.

[My computer that was upgraded for Arma2 still has practically the same fps problems in some situations as my old OFP computer when playing it :D]

But generally the effort seems to spend on the graphics does not seem to stand in any relation how the gameplay improves by it. But I do suppose it is right that you have to do that in order to sell it to more numpties.

On the AI I have to say I disagree. I was a huge fan of playing with AI in OFP. I think the fights you could have with it in WGL5 are unparalleled to this day.

After that in ArmA and Arma2 playing with AI went downhill quick,very quick.

Yes , Pathfinding improved and Yes, They do perform a great theatrical performance of "I Lie down!; NO!,you lie down! WHERE IS OUR LEADER BTW?!?" but I suppose what dissappoints you,me and some other people is the fact that with the work BIS put into it , all they achieved is making it look more scripted , but unfortunately not achieving anything that makes the AI suck less in actual combat than it did in OFP. The whole tactical part in my view relatively remains the same.

Also in a lack of what appears to me to be a greater picture of what to achieve, the way humans can interact with his AI is as inefficient , if not due to the scripted ignorance of the AI more inefficient and outright much more painful than in OFP.

Whatever that quick menu was supposed to be , it is not helpful for gameplay with AI in many ways.

Thats why I personally believe, how wrong I may be , why BIS improved AI adds little extra fun to the game.

How to improve gameplay then tho?

Considering that BIS are not very stupid people and assuming all the obvious extra features and big enhanced simulation capabilities(May I say Tanks,Digging In,Rivers,etc.) have been tried already and deemed undoable or will take some time to come, I think in the meantime would be far better off if they focused more on useability improvements instead of gimmicks.

A flashlight and laser on a weapon seems nice and surely can probably be abused for something more useful,

but general small improvements like the "Multiple MP Parameter" feature help everyone and provide actual enhanced gameplay for very little effort in my little opinion. I do suppose tho they their new customers and target audience don't care so much about going into a new release and going: "Oh,is that still broken","Oh,look,that limitation is still in,hooray!"

[Bulldogs 10]

I just finished playing a cipher mission that really reminded me of the old Flashpoint days, man that mission rocks...

Anyways, could argue to death but in the end, Oblivion sucked gameplay wise but had great graphics, so I think you mixed that one up, at least in my opinion, and Arma 2 has great graphics and great gameplay, just different gameplay to flashpoint (more difficult and more advanced, but that's what user made missions with low level AI are for)

The only problems I get with Arma 2 are the same problems that existed since Flashpoint. The AI isn't autonomous enough when you're leader, as in if you tell them it's safe and they get under fire they still think it's safe.

That and the driving, although that is highly entertaining "hmm, there's a truck in my way.. what should I do.... I know, Ram it!" ... *crunch*... "hmm, that didn't work... wait, maybe if I ram it again it'll work this time"... *Crunch*

PS : comparing the survivability of an MMO against a First Person Shooter is a bit off the mark.

[Guest]

You've got to be kidding right? Take the perfect fantasy game template (Morrowind) and..... just screw it. Talk about selling out gameplay for better graphics - you just quoted a perfect example of that.

Seriously. A game that has a built-in walkthrough. Every step of the way you're told where to go (people "got lost" in Morrowind apparently. Boo-hoo, that IS gameplay), what you think, who to talk to, where to go next, what a terrible game. All opponents are scaled to your current level, no area is out of bounds, no reason to level up, for everything rubber-bands around you to maintain *cof* "Gameplay" *cof*. That game is made for console players. Easy to digest half hour slices of a better game. Sure you can mod that stuff out, but the fact remains that the games central core is built around that handholding idea, and could never really get true gameplay again.

I tried to like that game, really, I did. I tried for about 3 months. But after all that time I had to come to the conclusion that Morrowind represented the game I wanted to play, not that stunted horror of a sequel. So I went back to that, problem solved great gameplay.

Moral. If all you want in a sequel is exactly the same thing as before - don't waste money, just play the thing before. IMO natch.

Actually, if one looks at how long Oblivion has been out, and how extremely active their main forums are..

And further more, the graphics are no great hit on most pc's.. maybe back when it was released it was a substantial hit on the modern computer.. But - BUT - they went the extra 500 miles to provide nearly never ending content, of great quality.

I never played the previous Tes's.. But I do know that due to the fact Beth put so much, sooo much into Oblivion, it lasts solidly even today. Primarily due to the fact of a constantly revolving universal 'life' system.. The world is alive 7 days a week, 24 hours a day.

And further more the modding community simply builds off of what has been provided, and it's just amazing to see how things have transpired.

It's really the point here.. that it's a good example of a 'medium'.. They made a huge world, made it detailed and great looking, but.. but they also provided gargantuan huge quality content for players to enjoy..

Take Oblivion.. remove all of the quest content in the game, replace it with basically junk just thrown in.. and tell me that everyone would still hail the game as great because of it's graphical quality and other 'game engine' properties..

I don't want to buy a game because it's as life like as a movie as far as graphics go.. And I don't want to spend more money to update my system to run it.. All I want is a well done game with amazing great in game content like Ofp had.. Where graphics are second, and it's the content that pulls you in.. makes you feel a part of what's going on.

How about a simple book? Stripping things down to basics here.. either it's content takes you there, or it doesent.. Imo video games are the same. We all know it's a game.. but if the content is not well done, no matter how great the graphics are, we are all reminded it is a game when we arent immersed by the content.

I have some reading to do.. didnt realize this topic would do anything but either get locked or just fade.. :P

[SylverFyre 10]

Maybe I'm in a minority (I don't think so) but I like this game, and it's SP campaign. The multiplayer rocks and although I haven't played with it much, the editor is obviously great too otherwise there wouldn't be all those cool missions to play on servers....

The graphics are good in this game, although it is a system hog, and there are other flaws too - but it's ambitious and I reckon pulls a lot of it off well enough :)

[dmarkwick 261]

Actually, if one looks at how long Oblivion has been out, and how extremely active their main forums are..

Like Armed Assault? By your very own reasoning you've moved ArmA from poor effort into great game.

Oblivion is obviously a taste thing, however I note that most people who held similar complaints to mine on those forums, simply could not understand why there was not more outcry. Obviously, people like simpler and easier games, and are willing to place good looks over gameplay. I know you've said the opposite of it, but it's not the case. I couldn't get to like it, because the basic core engineered game is poor. A lot of the mods & addons are in direct response to those poor design decisions, trying to change, rework, or otherwise obliterate them.

And further more, the graphics are no great hit on most pc's.. maybe back when it was released it was a substantial hit on the modern computer.. But - BUT - they went the extra 500 miles to provide nearly never ending content, of great quality.

So you're implying that in 2 years time ArmA2 will magically become more acceptable to you because the graphics will be easier handled by new PCs?

[Guest]

Hello,

I think the "Ofp way" either died a long time ago or it was just something we made up in our heads.

I think the point that is made here is and something that I generally think to agree with that game design should consider all aspects of a game.

Something that due to various unknown reasons (bad input ? ,bad priorities ?,no money ?,lack of motivation ?) has neither happened in my opinion in both Arma and Arma2. It is all rather random.

I do wonder at what view distances,with what object numbers on the screen we could play with if we stayed at slightly improved OFP style graphics.

Not to speak of that user created models would be far easier to make I would imagine.

How much do the high-poly high-texture models actually contribute to the fun you have while playing?

Not to speak of there are actual graphics fashion gimmicks like HDR and bloom that destroy the atmosphere far more than they add to it.

On the other hand tho, implementing new graphics technology (and may it be as utterly useless as HDR) and optimizing the graphics engine probably go hand in hand , so it is something that had to be done anyways I guess.

[My computer that was upgraded for Arma2 still has practically the same fps problems in some situations as my old OFP computer when playing it :D]

But generally the effort seems to spend on the graphics does not seem to stand in any relation how the gameplay improves by it. But I do suppose it is right that you have to do that in order to sell it to more numpties.

On the AI I have to say I disagree. I was a huge fan of playing with AI in OFP. I think the fights you could have with it in WGL5 are unparalleled to this day.

After that in ArmA and Arma2 playing with AI went downhill quick,very quick.

Yes , Pathfinding improved and Yes, They do perform a great theatrical performance of "I Lie down!; NO!,you lie down! WHERE IS OUR LEADER BTW?!?" but I suppose what dissappoints you,me and some other people is the fact that with the work BIS put into it , all they achieved is making it look more scripted , but unfortunately not achieving anything that makes the AI suck less in actual combat than it did in OFP. The whole tactical part in my view relatively remains the same.

Also in a lack of what appears to me to be a greater picture of what to achieve, the way humans can interact with his AI is as inefficient , if not due to the scripted ignorance of the AI more inefficient and outright much more painful than in OFP.

Whatever that quick menu was supposed to be , it is not helpful for gameplay with AI in many ways.

Thats why I personally believe, how wrong I may be , why BIS improved AI adds little extra fun to the game.

How to improve gameplay then tho?

Considering that BIS are not very stupid people and assuming all the obvious extra features and big enhanced simulation capabilities(May I say Tanks,Digging In,Rivers,etc.) have been tried already and deemed undoable or will take some time to come, I think in the meantime would be far better off if they focused more on useability improvements instead of gimmicks.

A flashlight and laser on a weapon seems nice and surely can probably be abused for something more useful,

but general small improvements like the "Multiple MP Parameter" feature help everyone and provide actual enhanced gameplay for very little effort in my little opinion. I do suppose tho they their new customers and target audience don't care so much about going into a new release and going: "Oh,is that still broken","Oh,look,that limitation is still in,hooray!"

I agree in some areas here.

Although I think one main area is being missed.. Where is the quality mission content?

We were mostly all severely disappointed with Arma1's mission content, and after I have spent some time reading through the forums here, the results are similar..

Arma1 - were on a resort island, with factional conflicts going on that we take part in.. Main primary concept = gimme a break..

Then further more, the content just got worse and worse along the way..

I agree, I'd not call the BIS team a bunch of dummies.. but what the heck.. was the design of the major concept of the Arma1's setting supposed to make pure sense and give pure immersion to the players? Of course not.. In fact, I'm thinking more and more it was a cheap quick way to create a tiny scenario that required as little effort as possible to pull off the content required for it..

As stated above.. yes, I know the company is underfunded and they are barely staying afloat..

But I will say this again.. DAMMIT..

Put together a solid, good looking graphics and behavioral engine, and then focus, FOCUS on a grand scheme for in game content and I'm telling you.. YOU WIN. People will rally their thoughts on the forums after playing through even just a couple of missions.. They will hail the game as amazing.. muchly in part due to the missions they took part in..

Remove this, and try to let the modders do this.. man.. your asking for the defaeat of your own company..

Forget graphics, you guys got some serious talent in your teams, put it to use, get some great voice actors, create an awesome and believable plot, and make it happen. Sell the dang thing as an 'addon'.. whatever.

Man you guys put enough effort into the 'expansion' of content, and I'm telling you people will pay top dollar for it, and it might even put you on dry ground.. rather than where you are.. under water..

The real irony.. is that this sort of content brings forth more modding as well, it inspires us modders to build off of what was already greatly done by the company..

Sure, many would prolly say ' this expansion costs 50 us dollars??'.. but .. BUT.. if everyone that does buy it swears that it is amazing and awesome, well then the efforts and time and money spent by the company will likely yield ten fold over time.. Considering the community here I know dang well is a pretty overall well committed community to this game, and that kind of effort put into a huge quality expansion release would certainly NOT go unnoticed.

It's backwards really, I doubt I will personally buy Arma2, I went through great lengths to just get Arma 1 running at reasonable frame rates.. even bought a new video card for it, many hours tweaking my system.. And now this new game says I need more? I'm sorry, but I was impressed enough with Arma1's appearance, and even more so considering what I had to go through to run it, and now I am supposed to nearly buy a whole new system to run this? And further more.. as I read from the forums.. the content is very bland and buggy, just like in Arma1?

I'm probably not ever going to spend the money to get my system to run Arma2, but I really wanted to just be honest here.. coming from a HUGE fan of Ofp.. man you guys need to look at the angle your focusing on here.

[froggyluv 2130]

Don't care about the graphics (do like head bob/blur for immersion though), but how can somebody not care about the AI?

I could never go back to either OFP or Arma because I love infantry combat, and the AI in those games never went for cover. To me thats huge. Just played a round in arma2, and opened fired on an enemy squad near the treeline of the woods and all of them scattered and took cover. Im no scripter but from other products I've seen it's pretty hard to get AI in open world shooters to understand cover and that was the main selling point for me.

[Guest]

Like Armed Assault? By your very own reasoning you've moved ArmA from poor effort into great game.

Oblivion is obviously a taste thing, however I note that most people who held similar complaints to mine on those forums, simply could not understand why there was not more outcry. Obviously, people like simpler and easier games, and are willing to place good looks over gameplay. I know you've said the opposite of it, but it's not the case. I couldn't get to like it, because the basic core engineered game is poor. A lot of the mods & addons are in direct response to those poor design decisions, trying to change, rework, or otherwise obliterate them.

No I did not. Your avoiding my major complaint within all of this here. Which is simply. Where is the great quality content like in Ofp? The sort of content that keeps a game flowing on for years even when it's graphical appearances are outdated.

So you're implying that in 2 years time ArmA2 will magically become more acceptable to you because the graphics will be easier handled by new PCs?

Again, you are avoiding the main reason for my topic. The graphics are NOT the most important thing. The content is.

What difference does it make if we have to spend 200 dollars to upgrade, and experience life like graphics and Ai behavior.. just to see there is no amazing content in the missions to compliment it?

I don't give a care about graphics, heck FFUR with Ofp was good enough for me.. Arma1 was FAR good enough for me.. and the "Ai improvements".. in many ways were undesirable and VERY difficult to deal with while modding..

Heck man, I miss the good ol' days of flying a modded huey chopper into an enemy stronghold at night that had like 100 units on the ground, plus tanks and other stuff.. and watching the fire show as I pounded the area with my ffar's.. with ffur enabled it was just awesome! And lag free.. Or how about just spending a month or two enjoying from time to time being hugely immersed in the original Cold War Campaign, and loving the cutscenes with the amazing voice actings? Or having a great time with Ofp Resistance campaign..

Now.. I couldn't even imagine trying to port over my mass sized project (Kolgujev Conflict/Arma) into Arma 2.. in Arma 1 I had to setup a complicated script system to remove all but the the nearest town occupants because of the mass lag.. now.. from what I've read.. forget it. And even worse, I guess Cti will never transpire into Arma2 either due to the lag caused..

Content. CONTENT. Not gameplay enhancements, not graphical improvements, not Ai improvements.. CONTENT.

---------- Post added at 11:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:02 PM ----------

I just finished playing a cipher mission that really reminded me of the old Flashpoint days, man that mission rocks...

Anyways, could argue to death but in the end, Oblivion sucked gameplay wise but had great graphics, so I think you mixed that one up, at least in my opinion, and Arma 2 has great graphics and great gameplay, just different gameplay to flashpoint (more difficult and more advanced, but that's what user made missions with low level AI are for)

The only problems I get with Arma 2 are the same problems that existed since Flashpoint. The AI isn't autonomous enough when you're leader, as in if you tell them it's safe and they get under fire they still think it's safe.

That and the driving, although that is highly entertaining "hmm, there's a truck in my way.. what should I do.... I know, Ram it!" ... *crunch*... "hmm, that didn't work... wait, maybe if I ram it again it'll work this time"... *Crunch*

PS : comparing the survivability of an MMO against a First Person Shooter is a bit off the mark.

I hear you, really I do.

In many ways, realistically speaking yes, Oblivion gameplay, although still real time, can suck..

And I'm confident that Arma2, just like Arma1, has made improvements on Ai behavior..

But what I'm doing is putting all the 'gameplay' enhancements aside, putting aside the "ai improvements".. and asking about quality in game content provided by the company.

Seriously.. How successful would Ofp had been if they *only* focused on ai behavior and gameplay enhancements, and therefore.. they discarded the gigantic efforts they put into the Cold War campaign? How successful would it have been had they never released Resistance.. instead it was just a graphical enhancement pack.. along with a bunch of improved Ai functions?

Had Ofp *not* put in the mass effort they did for the tons of missions provided to immerse us, it likely would have been a huge critical failure.. as soon as people got it they would say.. "looks great!.. ai is amazing!.." but .. the missions stink..

Imo making a major release to a game and not providing completely immersive content is like asking for a disaster. Again, modders will not, for the most part, be able to compensate, because we are working for free and do not have the resources.

If Arma2 revealed the sort of mission content that was as great of quality of Ofp.. I hate to admit it.. but I for one would probably go to great lengths to find a way (through likely hundreds of dollars spent) to get my system to run it.. But that is clearly not the case from my many searches on this forums. I was wise this time to look before buying, and I see Arma2 is little different than Arma1, apart from graphical improvements and ai improvements, apart from that, it seems the content is just as bad, if not worse than Arma1. To me, that's just not right. And I had been severely bummed after all the work I went through to get Arma1 running after playing, and it wont happen again.

Edited September 20, 2009 by Guest

[dmarkwick 261]

Oh I get it. You're moaning about the missions. You're complaining that the game looks great, but that you don't like the missions. Odd, considering that Oblivion "missions" are simplistic in the extreme, with no skill whatsoever needed to complete them, as everything you need to do is spoonfed to you.

Well, I have not so much as even fired up one. single. mission. that came with ArmA2. You're saying that OFP represents greater value because of the missions that came with it were better? Let me tell you, missions aside, ArmA2 represents the natural successor to OFP in every way, but if you're one of those guys who only plays the default inbox missions - you're going to have a different opinion to most other people. By "quality content" you mean the campaign right? Because as far as I can tell, ArmA2 is stuffed with quality content. ArmA2 is filled with infinite diversity and possibility, but again, if you're limiting yourself to the ingame missions, you won't see it.

Edited September 20, 2009 by DMarkwick

[maturin 12]

Actually, if one looks at how long Oblivion has been out, and how extremely active their main forums are..

And further more, the graphics are no great hit on most pc's.. maybe back when it was released it was a substantial hit on the modern computer.. But - BUT - they went the extra 500 miles to provide nearly never ending content, of great quality.

I never played the previous Tes's.. But I do know that due to the fact Beth put so much, sooo much into Oblivion, it lasts solidly even today. Primarily due to the fact of a constantly revolving universal 'life' system.. The world is alive 7 days a week, 24 hours a day.

I've posted on the Bethesda forums for four years now (just banned this month), and I can assure you, Morrowind fans constitute the backbone of the community. A lot the Oblivion activity consists of either transients or people who pick up Morrowind afterwards.

Oblivion has a good lifespan and is a good game in it's own right, but the depth and amount of concept is nothing to Morrowind. Scope and gameplay were stripped down in favor of new tech. That it no longer requires a high end computer right now is irrelevant. At the time it did. Most importantly to me, it is a shallow, cliched fairy tale with no narrative or creative direction, and a betrayal of one of the best kept secrets of the fantasy genre. Oblivion's NPC walk around in small circle and occasionally from A to B, but Morrowind's setting was an exquisite example of storytelling through worldbuilding and atmosphere.

But this is unbelievably off-topic.

Edited September 21, 2009 by maturin

[whisper 0]

1) A2 AI is greatly improved, and saying OFP ones were better is, simply put, looking at it with rose tinted glasses.

2) People may not like the way BI used Warfare in their campaign missions, but the time it must have taken them to set up A2 campaign is imho equal to OFP campaign. Not the same gameplay.

And you know what? If they had done exactly the same kind, people here would cry about "it's just a OFP rehash!!". Because OFP community is just like that.

"the content is just as bad, if not worse than Arma1". Only 1 thing to say : BS. Sry, but that's all the reaction I've had after reading this.

Just 1 example : Islands of the same quality (and size) than Everon, done by community? Seen some.

Island of the same quality (and size) than Chernarus, done by community? You won't get anytime soon.

[Guest]

Oh I get it. You're moaning about the missions. You're complaining that the game looks great, but that you don't like the missions. Odd, considering that Oblivion "missions" are simplistic in the extreme, with no skill whatsoever needed to complete them, as everything you need to do is spoonfed to you.

Well, I have not so much as even fired up one. single. mission. that came with ArmA2. You're saying that OFP represents greater value because of the missions that came with it were better? Let me tell you, missions aside, ArmA2 represents the natural successor to OFP in every way, but if you're one of those guys who only plays the default inbox missions - you're going to have a different opinion to most other people. By "quality content" you mean the campaign right? Because as far as I can tell, ArmA2 is stuffed with quality content. ArmA2 is filled with infinite diversity and possibility, but again, if you're limiting yourself to the ingame missions, you won't see it.

Your opinion on Oblivion content - considering the fact it took around 80 team members to pull the content off.

As far as indicating I'm moaning, you can go stuff yourself :) How's that go with your moldy beans and rice.

Further more, when one buys the game, if they are not playing some of the "default" missions.. then what the hell are they playing? Your cheasy excuse for a good comprise composed in the editor after 5 minutes of playing with groups?

Give me a break.

All your doing is avoiding the truth - I asked 20 times .. what if Ofp didnt have the quality missions and campaigns that they provided..

But all you say is.. I'm a moron.. Look at the amazing improvements.. sure..

Not very good at debating with people you want to argument with are you.

[dmarkwick 261]

Your opinion on Oblivion content - considering the fact it took around 80 team members to pull the content off.

Meaning what?

*edit*

OK, I guess you mean "no skill needed to complete them" comment. Well, I was talking about the player. The player needs no skill to complete them. Better?

Further more, when one buys the game, if they are not playing some of the "default" missions.. then what the hell are they playing? Your cheasy excuse for a good comprise composed in the editor after 5 minutes of playing with groups?

You said it yourself, we're playing WITH the game, not just on it :)

All your doing is avoiding the truth - I asked 20 times .. what if Ofp didnt have the quality missions and campaigns that they provided..

Not much of a question there to be honest bud, you're not making it very clear what you are asking, but since you insist:

Wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference. OFP's popularity is not anchored on it's campaign or default missions.

Not very good at debating with people you want to argument with are you.

I'm rather excellent as it happens :) I've just got to understand what the point IS first ;) you're waving your arms about moaning about "quality content" while bemoaning it's excellent graphics and dismissing all AI improvements, and seemingly any other improvements. I mean, WTF are we supposed to make of that? Then it turns out you're moaning about the missions. Well, you have your answer, those that do not care about the missions, do not care :)

Edited September 21, 2009 by DMarkwick

[AndresCL 10]

Its called Evolution (No, im not talking about the mission)

[shataan 1]

"Do we get immersed and feel like we were there? Or do we feel like we just took part in a cheaply made, and thrown out the door game?

Imo.. In many ways.. Graphics come LAST."

I DO feel like I am there in the ARMA 2 gameworld. Content doesn`t immerse. The visuals and sounds do that. FP was cool no doubt. But the content didn`t blind peeps to the fact that the visuals were fugly. lol And FP was pretty buggy for the longest time after release.

I played the FP sp campaigne 3 times. And tho there were some of the missions that were cool, not all of them were.

It was the fanbase sp/co op missions and addons that made FP for me. ARMA 2 is so immense, I think it`ll be awhile yet till we see what it can really do. BIS did an amazing job of the visuals/sounds/motion capture/models etc etc etc.... for ARMA 2.

I`d say ARMA 2 is more like FP than the new FP coming. But the real proof will be in the pudding I guess. Is ARMA 2 perfect? No, but they got at alot more right for me, than wrong.

[4 IN 1 0]

A very long thread, and i skip alot, but to simply put, if someone did their effort to put back the "complete" OFP mission and campaign and basic content back to arma2 it would be just as fine(if not better), I mean CWR mod proved themself that it is possible, and looks they want port things to arma2 as well