Why is this game not more popular?

[NoRailgunner 0]

Arma2 could be more popular (read: not dumb-down).

Imho BIS devs dont have the time and staff to implement/test all the (basic) things properly before release.

BIS devs are nice guys because they still let the people change/fix their game. Unlike many other devs/publishers who release DLC/Addon-/Boosterpacks only to increase their profit.

People hope and believe that the community will fix and improve the game like they do since ~9 years.

Some people just trust and protecting blindly anything what BIS are doing.

Now the questions might be: How BIS/publishers can increase the popularity of A2/OA? Is more & better advertisement the solution?

[rekrul 7]

I would think a closed beta, followed by a public beta is the way to go. This would delay release but it would ensure a higher quality of the product once released. Also it would create some buzz before release and lots more people would test it. There wouldn't be a need for a demo neither.

---------- Post added at 01:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:47 PM ----------

Ace42, you really like yourself ,don't you? I can imagine people avoiding you at parties because of your "excellent" conversational skills. Did I read the words "stuck up"? Pretty much sums it all up, imo.

I don't see why everyone is jumping down Ace's throat. To reduce his posts to nonsense because of his linguistic skills doesn't really make you come across as captain of the debate team.

Although I don't agree with Ace on his view of the graphics and I find them highly exaggerated it is a matter of performance issues. Obviously Arma2 isn't optimized to utilize high-end system - either because of poor drivers, poor threading by windows, or simply their own code.

However this all boils down to the age old playability vs graphics. Some value graphics as a bigger part of playability than others. This is why there are still people playing OFP and why you see a ton of old classic games being re-launched. Now the biggest problem with Arma2 is the playability factor. Granted - we don't want someone holding your hand throughout the game but for new players it's quite an insane steep learning curve and you pretty much have to battle it through yourself. There are some excellent guides out there, but people don't want to study to be able to play the game and it's not like playing online on a public server will help you either. To dismiss them because they don't want to put in the effort most of us have, is why this game isn't more popular (well that and all the bugs too).

I think BIS should focus more on their training missions and boot camp. Just handling the dozen of keys is tough, but tactics and strategy is a crucial part too, not to mention map reading, picking the right weapons for the mission, how to approach, how to exit, when to engage, when to run, etc. I think they took a step in the right direction with the Arma2 campaign where they pretty much showcase most of their features (I think we all loved Manhattan - apart from all the bugs), now they should hold the players hand to at least steer them in the right direction.

Many gamers still won't like it and that's fair enough, it's a niche game. It wouldn't hurt making it easier for those interested and reducing the number of bugs which would really frustrate the new players to no end though.

[Deadfast 43]

No, what we have is a game that looks *TEN* years old (barely better than OFP), and handles worse than more recent titles to boot.

Are you sure we are talking about the same game here?

The game looks pretty gorgeous here and if I remember correctly it got praised as one of the best looking games of 2009 from a gaming site (its name sadly escapes me).

BF2 seemed a reasonable comparison because the two games share many similarities, and thus face the same technical challenges.

Yes, both games have guns that shoot and vehicles that drive around. But that's about where the similarities end.

[Bulldogs 10]

I don't like to insult anyone and everyones allowed their own opinions, but obviously Ace has just got something wrong. Maybe the files are corrupt or he's running it with 50% fillrate, but obviously somethings wrong with his game.

As for the engine, modern warfare 2's current engine was based on the quake 3 engine originally that went through many changes to become the iw tech 4 engine.

Same way the real virtuality engine (was that the name?) has changed so much over time. It's rare that a new game engine is actually fully new, it's usually developed off an older engine.

[froggyluv 2136]

BF2 seemed a reasonable comparison because the two games share many similarities, and thus face the same technical challenges. Comparing Arma2 to the most recent FPSs would be unfair for two reasons: It's easier to make superficial run-and-gun scripted FPSs look pretty; and given how amateurish Arma2 looks such a comparison would totally derail this discussion with precisely the sort of recriminations you've been coming up with, rather than just respecting the fact that some people will have perfectly valid opinions that happen to differ from yours.

No it's not a reasonable comparison. 1 game simply allows enormous battles involving potentially thousands of tanks, infantry, jets, choppers over a huge area simultaneuosly, the other don't at all. No amount of hyper-articulation can change that.

Game looks great to me :)

[december 0]

As Rekrul said it is a niche game. How can you expect it to be popular if it is a niche game?

I don't know the game sales but I assume it peaked with OFP, anyone actually know the numbers? There are not going to be any more players than there are now. I am sure it will spike when the expansion is released but after a few months it will drop to present levels. There just aren't that many player out there that are interested in this style of game play.

Look at the insane sales of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, that is the style of gameplay that the majority want, it is not going to change. ArmA style gameplay does not appeal to the general gaming community.

[rekrul 7]

ArmA style gameplay does not appeal to the general gaming community.

I think the appeal is very much there, but we lose quite a few when they realize that they have to run >50m before they can open up, they're not really part of the potential anyways. But there are quite a few potentials who give up due to the steep learning curve and/or bugs. That is something that they could do something about.

I don't know why BIS is so afraid of public betas, I think the main core of people playing the game now will buy it regardless. There are ofcourse those who were "tricked" into buying this game thinking Whoa! BF2 with more stuff in it! But after Arma1 and 2 I think they've learned their lesson. BIS might have burned some bridges there but they're more likely to come back in a free public beta and better release than no beta and yet another buggy release.

[Guest]

A beta is good, but I imagine it comes with many potential issues aswell.

I mean, your always going to have that one idiot who starts saying how crap the beta is and how they should fix this and that...Duh, it's a beta!

lol :p

[zoog 18]

BTW, how is "being popular" defined? This thread started about being popular as an online game, but I think that ignores the largest part of the players.

I guarantee that there are thousands and thousands of players who don't go online and don't join this forum, let alone use xfire for logging their game hours. So I suspect that many players are unknown to us because they simply like Single Player the most. At least, I know that huge parts of the old tactical shooter communities like Ghost Recon 1 and Rainbow Six series played SP only and never touched MP. Heck, I was one of them, never joined a forum or played online with those games.

So I think sales numbers would be a better means of estimating if this game is popular, not just the online player stats.

Has there even been sales stats released about A2?

[S-M 10]

The flora and fauna is alive.

You might want to try some of the LOD vegetation mods to fix that :D

[Guest]

Zoog sums it up perfectly. I also never touched online with ghost recon.

(Although thats mainly because it got so damn boring after one playthrough lol)

[whisper 0]

Mon grain de sel :

If you ask me, yes, the performance in the game is subpar to other current games, and yes it puts many people away from the game.

It may be "playable" (barely), but that is not enough for a smooth online experience like what you can get on mainstream titles like Modern loneWolf 2.

Looks like the general crowd here doesn't like to hear it, but that's the main point I hear all the time when talking about A2 : "performance is not there. MW2 runs much better".

And it's logical, as there is ZERO other game that achieve the scope A2 has, the scale, the AI, the simulation precision, all this at the same time, so yes, it's unfair to compare.... But it's true anyway, like it or not.

Second, the open-ended nature of the game and the variety you're supposed to encounter (if you look at public servers, you quickly realise there's not so much variety in the end, but that's another topic) make the first step in the game rather confusing for people new to the genre. There's no help, the server selection screen doesn't help you knowing what kind of game you're about to play (apart from "coop" which is understandable), you usually begin in a vast open field, alone without any clue given about what you're supposed to do. Yes, this is the very purpose of A2, yes this situation is normal for A2, but look it through the eyes of newcomers who bought it for online play.

And no, people new to the game and finding it hard to understand are not worse than A2 players. To be honest, I'm quite sick of the amount of stupid elitism encountered here. You are not an inch better than other online players, stop fooling yourself about your so highly praised simulation and how far higher you are from the usual online players pleb.

Same for the ones complaining about performance. They are not of lesser breed

Poor performance, confusing and slow gameplay => few people like it. As simple as that. And these few are no better than the rest.

[nettrucker 142]

Yeah there are a lot of people which are not playing much online. I for myself had only a brief period online playing on charlie Foxtrot server. PvP. I loved it. Unfortunately RL issues prevented me from going on.

Second the most fascinated thing abiut BIS games for me is the editor. I'm an editor guy and making missions is a very time consuming undertaking, the same as for the addon and modmakers. Countless hours spent in the editor more than actually playing.

Well back on topic.

Fact is as a newbie you gotta first learn how to play the game. Hitting a moving enemy at 300-400 m is not everyone's cup of tea, especially considering that the target is really small. Remember the first time I played "Steal the car" OFP single mission. Man I was real p***ed couldn't hit no sh*t, but there was my challenge. I had to learn how play the game first without getting capped every couple of minutes.LOL:D

That was the first Mission I ever played back in OFP.

Fact is that you get hooked completely or you don't. In case you don't . . . I guess than you miss to understand the spirit of this game and it's absolute freedom, to do whatever comes into your mind. I believe that the only limit is our own fantasy.

@whisper

I don't think that a lot of people are considering themselfes a better breed or think of elitism because they play BIS games. It's just a game . . . a special one for me and most probably for all community members. That's why we are here.

This community is friendly as long as people behave and stick to the forum rules. Remember Wolle is not only behind you . . . he's everywhere . . . doing a good job.

Games are as matter of fact an individual taste thing. Since I play BIS titles I have rarely fun playing other wargames. i just can't get the same satisfaction playing COD,MW. whatever . . . you name it. GR original and Silent hunter are games that I play when taking a break from ArmA, but I'm always coming back to BIS.:inlove:

Do you think I gotta a problem??????LOL.:D

Kind regards

nettrucker

[Dead3yez 0]

@whipser

I think you're spot on. Apart from the poor performance... No-one likes it - just some people can deal with it.

Does anyone actually have a computer that can run the game just fine? Perhaps the few 1%.

As for me, adding to my previous post:

I hardly ever play arma2 without ACE2. ACE2 was a revolution for me, I actually started playing the game as much as I played ArmA1, for a long period I left ArmA2 to rest. To be honest I'd rather play (vanilla) ArmA1 than ArmA2 any day. At least that's how I feel some days.

I know a lot of people who prefer ArmA1, why is that?

[STALKERGB 6]

Remember Wolle is not only behind you . . . he's everywhere . . .

Have locked all my doors now... shotgun loaded....

I find that with ARMA you often have to think about things a bit more (not that its the only game that does this). Wheres stuff like MW2 you can just whack on, kill stuff for a bit and be done. Not that there is anything wrong with that, have to say i enjoy it sometimes. I suppose thats what keeps me coming back to ARMA, just is that bit more complex and when you finish more meaningful and worth the effort :)

[Herbal Influence 10]

There will soon be more online gamers:

When all the guys stopp making addons/islands/missions and come on gaming online.

Another hord can be recruted when the BI Forum is closed for a week ... ;-)

[-Total- 0]

Mon grain de sel :

If you ask me, yes, the performance in the game is subpar to other current games, and yes it puts many people away from the game.

It may be "playable" (barely), but that is not enough for a smooth online experience like what you can get on mainstream titles like Modern loneWolf 2.

Looks like the general crowd here doesn't like to hear it, but that's the main point I hear all the time when talking about A2 : "performance is not there. MW2 runs much better".

And it's logical, as there is ZERO other game that achieve the scope A2 has, the scale, the AI, the simulation precision, all this at the same time, so yes, it's unfair to compare.... But it's true anyway, like it or not.

I've encountered alot of those people. I ask them if MW2 has the ballistics, mechanics, and a 225 square km destructable enviroment. When they say "No" then I tell them that's the reason MW2 runs smoother - It doesn't have as much to deal with. MW2 is a simpler game in physics, enviroment, textures, details, and data to be transferred to each client. Everytime someone knocks over a tree or a roadside marker, that info is now sent to every player in the game and the JIP's have to get it ALL up front which makes for a period of higher desync.

Then they complain about character movements.

I tell them that, yes, character movement in COD4, MW2, etc are smoother and smooth movements like that ARE possible.....IF the soldiers are all wearing spandex uniforms and wearing running shoes. The MOCAPs for the console shooters were done in spandex body suits - not in full combat gear. Strap on the packs, weapons, belts, boots, and body armor of a normal soldier and you will find that BIS was actually a bit gracious in the movements in ArmA2.

There's little details in character movements that go unnoticed because it's not like COD4. Ever notice that when you go prone from a full run, your character actually slides on his knees first? That's reality. With that much gear weight, diving to the ground from a full run is going to knock the wind out of you.

It boils down not to performance, but the fact that most people just want to log in and immediately start shooting things. Large enviroments, effective concealment, and realistic movements do not favor the run and gun, shoebox shooter atmosphere most gamers are used to.

So, instead of saying ArmA2 is much more in depth and a much larger scope than they prefer, they simply say the performance sucks. God help if they actually admitted otherwise. Their online ego's just won't allow it.

If my old AMD 4200 dual core w/ 2GB DRR2-667 RAM, and an 8600GT video card could run the game smoothly at normal settings - well, then anyone NOT able to do that with a higer ended system needs to learn how to set up their PC.

[Spawn Squad 10]

hi all, are there many clans in this game?

[Bulldogs 10]

Yep, there's a fair few.

You can play casual games, but if you're planning on playing Arma 2 multiplayer then I'd recommend a Clan, it's just so much better. You can find many casual clans that are happy to just PvP or Coop without too much thought, then there's the hardcore clans that operate like military units.

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

you usually begin in a vast open field, alone without any clue given about what you're supposed to do.

What exactly do you want? A giant flashing/floating arrow pointing to the objective?

The map section labelled "NOTES" and "TASK" are there for a reason, to let the player know what they need to do. Believe it or not but learning how to play a game is exactly that, learning.

[galzohar 31]

Another problem with most content being user made - most don't seem to write appropriate briefing if they even write a briefing, and most don't read it either and just expect to magically get a sign from god that will tell them what to do. And also in many missions you don't really know if you completed your objective or if the trigger actually required you to kill that 1 extra guy or that it is not satisfied by you just damaging the AA unit to 90% making it completely disabled as it waits for its full destruction. Add all of those together and you have some very confused players that stop playing. Of course I don't think that's as big of the reason as the ones I stated earlier in this thread, but it's definitely another one.

If my old AMD 4200 dual core w/ 2GB DRR2-667 RAM, and an 8600GT video card could run the game smoothly at normal settings - well, then anyone NOT able to do that with a higer ended system needs to learn how to set up their PC.

Yes, but then again people prefer to play games that don't require tweaking their PC to its top performance. Some people actually don't like it nor have the patience to do it. Most of them probably play on consoles anyway, but those that don't would probably get turned off by having this game run poorly. And yes, I've seen many people with superior machines get inferior performance in comparison to eachother.

[whisper 0]

What exactly do you want? A giant flashing/floating arrow pointing to the objective?

The map section labelled "NOTES" and "TASK" are there for a reason, to let the player know what they need to do. Believe it or not but learning how to play a game is exactly that, learning.

Look, I don't want anything, I play OFP I may guess since longer than you are, I know all this...

Just.... try once to be in their shoes. NOTES and TASK in a Domi or Warfare (they represent the VAST majority of what is played in A2, to the point A2 multiplayer is made of nearly only 2 modes : Coop with Domi, PvP with Warfare) tells you approx where to go. When you have no clue about how to because it's the fisrt time you enter the game, well... Just imagine what it is. I can't say better. You lose loads of time figuring all out. You're not good, you're a starter, you die fast, and have to go through the same, again...

Question was : why is this game not more popular?

I know pretty well it's not fair to ArmA2 to compare its performance with other games, to compare its pace with other games (to me, it's fair though to compare its sluggish animations, I don't see the point in making them more a pain than something you work with, though A2 has made things better). There is no other game achieving what ArmA does, and I'm pretty sure it's for a reason, and any other game trying will face the same issues as ArmA does.

But the fact remains : it has poor performances for too many people (no, 30 FPS is not enough for many, because these 30FPS are fluctuating horribly in A2), it is slow and empty too often.

Conclusion : less people play it.

Finding (valid) excuses for that will not resolve the issue

[rekrul 7]

What exactly do you want? A giant flashing/floating arrow pointing to the objective?

The map section labelled "NOTES" and "TASK" are there for a reason, to let the player know what they need to do. Believe it or not but learning how to play a game is exactly that, learning.

Problem is that virtually all games will allow you to just OK into the game and then you get a big fat arrow saying "Kill guy". When they don't get that it's confusing so they run somewhere on the map, shoot and usually gets killed. There's no fun in that. That's why I want a better boot camp so the new players at least knows where to look.

[tacticalnuggets 24]

What exactly do you want? A giant flashing/floating arrow pointing to the objective?

The map section labelled "NOTES" and "TASK" are there for a reason, to let the player know what they need to do. Believe it or not but learning how to play a game is exactly that, learning.

These sort of things make my point when it comes to the multiplayer aspect of arma 2. Many people go straight into multiplayer because its the first place they can go and interact with human people. Sadly, the game is too complex to just jump in a server and get a feel for the game. This is why I am going to continue to say that a chat system, party organizing system, and mod list/downloading system is desperately need when entering into the multiplayer section of the game.

The chat system will provide you the ability to ask questions and get a feel for the community. Players that have a run and gun mindset may even be persuaded to change there ways to get enjoyment out of the game, and friends will obviously be made in the process.

The party organizing system is needed because in order to have fun on most missions, you need other people to do it with. This will allow groups of people to join into servers and easily coordinate before a mission begins or they decide to load in. Clans, tactical gameplay, tournaments, and general team work will arise because of this, and those things certainly need a boost right now.

The approved addon list/downloading system is the most important thing needed in the multiplayer section. Like I have said before, half the servers require custom content, and most people will be demotivated by this. Even the option to automaticaly download individual addons at a time would be an extremely helpful thing for the community.

Does anybody think I should start my own suggestions thread for this?

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

Look, I don't want anything, I play OFP I may guess since longer than you are, I know all this...

I've played more than my fair share of OPF back in the day, but not the first ARMA.

Anyway, my point was that this is a game that isn't really for people who want to just jump online for an hour to quickly kill stuff. We all know there is a very very steep learning curve to learning all the intricacies of the game and most of the casual crowd either don't have the patience for it or have decided that the time-vs-reward factor isn't up to their standard.

This is why I am going to continue to say that a chat system, party organizing system, and mod list/downloading system is desperately need when entering into the multiplayer section of the game.

I can agree with what your saying, but part of me hopes that the game never becomes super easy for the casuals to get into, lest servers become infested with the younger generation running around tea bagging and doing otherwise generally immature things.