Why is this game not more popular?

[dmarkwick 261]

pfffffffffff we know that we can turn off the space bar with vet. mode but,since this game want and mostly is realistic,isn't the case to remove it?

the worst thing with that is that you can spawn enemy soldiers vehicles even if you cant see them and you can even use the space bar as a range finder.

do you guys know how many times you were killed even if you were in a good covered position just because someone used it?well we cant know but it have a fkin suspect about it..sometimes happened and i dont like it.since you have to find me using your eyes/binoculars not the space bar.

there is no reason for a space bar in a simulative game and ,for me considering how much is lame that function,is not making this game more friendly for newcomers but is just an option to the haters of arma 2 to whine about the game.

and is curious how the "funboyz national guard" is not able to tell clearly "oh yeah that a bulllllshit"as most of the people with common sense thinks.no!the first thing flew in your mind guys is"hey you can turn it off":rolleyes:....can't you guys simply ask to remove it since there are no credible reasons for such arcade option?

hey BIS give us an aimbot you know why?because is very difficult to shoot over miles away,make the game more friendly for newcomers.and give us the opportunity to switch off if we dont want to use it.

---------- Post added at 10:00 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:50 AM ----------

such amount of factionalism is discouraging.you guys are the biggest reason why this game take years to evolv seriusly.till you have a good numbers of integralists able to minimize your defects and to maximize the merits you don't need to drastically improves your games.

The fact is, that ArmA2 is firstly a game. Just a game that you buy in a game shop. As such, it needs to be accessible by gamers in order to be played.

Then, after some of the gamers discover what it can do, they turn the options off, or on :)

And that's the way it should be IMO, I don't agree that "non-realistic" features should be removed at point of publishment to satisfy the hardcore when it can be easily turned off by the same hardcore. Each person has a different idea of realism, and some features are there to counter the loss of immersion you get by simulating fighting on a battlefield with a cardboard box on your head, 2D vision locked at a low resolution, and no sense of pain etc. :)

[galzohar 31]

I have to agree that even though I want the game to be as realistic as possible, I don't think the lack of realism on certain aspects is a main factor that drives people away (or even a factor at all).

[*LK1* 10]

I have to agree that even though I want the game to be as realistic as possible, I don't think the lack of realism on certain aspects is a main factor that drives people away (or even a factor at all).

hehehe(is not sarcasm trust me...i have respect for the people) seriusly you dont know how many people has complained about the space bar when i was

playing.you guys have not?

but is normal since there isn't a reason to justify the presence of this features into a simulative game.im not for extrem realism but to remove something which si totally lame.can't you guys feel the difference?

p.s. guess who's more out of the context, me when i ask for more realism in arma 2 or people which defend unjustifiables/arcadish features like the space bar option :rolleyes:

[Bulldogs 10]

I agree that the spacebar scanning should be removed. Personally it has never bothered me but being that it's not easily disabled it'd be good if it could be setup to be easily disabled.

That said, there's some factors against realism that I think belong in ArmA 2. Thing like the crosshair. Don't get me wrong, I play without it usually, but it should still be there as an option for people to use. There was a thread in the suggestion forums a while back demanding the removal of the crosshair and when I asked why the user didn't just disable the crosshair he (and others) argued that no one should have the option to ever use the crosshair (regardless of difficulty, servers settings, etc).

For me it always comes back to a case of that if you don't like a feature then find a way to change it, and that's one of the great things about ArmA, that you can change what you want. People want to play with crosshairs, don't complain, just let them do what they want. People want spacebar scanning, well let them do it, but yes the game needs an easier way to disable it.

In the end, the real question is "what does this have to do with the popularity of ArmA 2"..... bugger all (well, maybe slight relevance), so may as well get back on topic.

[whisper 0]

You got your "justifications" 1 page ago, namely usefull tool to learn distance in A2, for example. In fact I don't really know for myself, I never use spacebar scanning.

But if optional, what do we have to lose keeping it? oO

It is "unjustifiable" to you, could you please understand it may not be so for everyone? Since nothing is forced down your throat, could you please not force the removal down other's people throat?

It's optional, aparently there are people out there that like, other that don't, I don't see much of a problem.

What next will be the "unjustifiable/arcadish", "totally lame" optional thing that needs to be removed? 3rd PoV? Cause I can find many people who will, as rightfully as you do with spacebar, refute the realism of 3rd PoV in a FPS and want it removed asap.

But it's optional, so the very feature cannot hurt any of the parties, for or against the feature, who cares?, use the settings you prefer, that is all!

You'll see discussion about crosshair, grass, many optional features, discussed at length, I wonder why, since they are optional.

It's a bit different in case of spacebar, as complete removal doesn't only require difficulty settings to be changed, but also more script things in the mission to remove everything it brings from the engine. So BI may improve on it, sure.

Moreover :

1) It's not your only pet-peeve if I refer to your extended discussion about FCS earlier, so no, I don't judge your whole argument solely based on spacebar issue

2) spacebar scanning is such a tiny problem it's certainly not the cause of the game's lack of popularity, which is the purpose of this thread

[*LK1* 10]

@***LeGeNDK1LLER***, using quick quotes:

"not for me the odiern FCS is not more challenging because you have just to stay on a god spot,for example with a tank, and waiting for an enemy vehicle in coming by pressing like a crazy the TAB key"

Oh that? Turn off crosshairs. With those off, you have to scan, find and aim at a target, then hit tab (I think I use right mouse button though) to engage the FCS which raises the aimpoint ensuring a hit at least for stationary targets.

mmm if you turn the crosshair off(you might think about the vet. mode?)the TAB key and the default fake FCS( the diamond..) still works.there is just a little difference between normal mode and expert mode concerning the tanks.in vet mode if you have spotted 1 tank and you want to see it on map you have to press the SPACE BAR key.there is just this,basically insignificant(cuz is not changing drastically the way you play..),

difference.you can believe me cuz even if i have "curious" ideas(you know im asking for more realism in arma 2.. i must be a fool)about this game i mnot a bullshit dealer.or you can go to the editor to verify.

"they are not giving to much attention at the comunity."

What? I don't think there is any other game developer out there with the same connection to their community, at least with this kind of game. Three medical based modules, which are very good but somewhat lacking in MP capability. Not 100% realistic, but would allow not having a medic on every team. The possibility to break out of animation when giving first aid - something not supported "by default", and probably for reasons I'm not going to understand. Check the Arma2 feature list, and find that many of the features are things we requested.

that why they removed the bradley or the littlebirds?cuz they listen to the people?i dont have found tons of request to remove these vehicles...cuz the comunity was pretty much happy about these new toys.

ok this is personal: i consider a SH close and linked to his comunity when they dont wait years to add something that the comunity is asking from the paleolithic age.

of course i dont pretend that they add stuffs we are asking for in a month..

(need to specify before someone jump in to make some easy irony)

guess the temporal parameter to establish if they are listening to us is in the middle.example?well flares for example:we were asking for that implementation

since OFP times...and yeah!they are listening to us because they are adding it into OA.we have had to wait just 8 years...but who cares,we are patient guys ;).

In comparison. Where was CM when we started posting about OFP DR in their forums?

sir i can give you other examples of SH linked to their comunity..you dont need to take as example the CM which is a totally dumb SH.is easy to

to make a favorable comparison for your positions in this way...

they have depeloved a game for 6/7 years and when the game was out it was a miserable fail.

CM,is not polite to talk about the deads...

"i would to see just a realistic javelin,stinger/strela, more close mandoble missile sistem to lock on air target from a jet(not asking for a simulative 1 but something more credible..),FCS for tanks and choppers."

Are you one of those who refuses to watch videos and reviews from upcoming game, OA? I think most of us aren't asking for full simulation, just getting rid of the way-too-easy-to-use targeting systems we currently have. And to me, it's looking good, at least from what I've seen so far. Let reality modders deal with full simulation.

well i dont know how you desumed i was not checking for OA updates...but honestly it doesnt interest me to much.

with OA we have made some step forward. but,since i want to be impartial,i must say

some big problem persists.

i would to know which ideas you have about the javelin;with OA now (finally!)we cant use the javelin immediately when we see an enemy as ofp or arma1/2..it was totally lame.now we need to wait 3/4 sec. then we hear a beep and we can shoot.BUT do you know that if you move your javelin left and right(doesnt matter if you are aiming trough the IR sistem)you can see enemy vehicles?is frustrating cuz is like a radar for infantry..(and you can see it on map)isn't it a big issue?:rolleyes::rolleyes:

i would to hear some comment by you guys about that.

and let me tell you 1 thing,stop confusing a logic request for a excessive request.

if you guys want to spot enemy vehicles you have to use your binocular

not a javelin LOL..:rolleyes:my last observation is something related with a request of ultra-realism inside the game?not for me,is just something related with common sense.

"TABBING like a crazy the whole match instead to search with your eyes an enemy is a bit different from me"

Which is why ACE removes it in most circumstances. The "radar" we currently have (which again, I still think of as an automatic IR capability due to lack of IR) should have been redesigned how players see it (AI would still need the old way)ecc.

no sorry but guess is no sense to justify the radar presence as a compensation for the IR absence.is completely different how they works.

i have my personal idea,they made that radar to simplify the life of tankers,or they should spot the enemies by looking at 360 degrees searching for an enemy. if the BIS goal was to compensate the IR not avaible with the radar

they have exceeded their objective.ask to any tankers if they would prefer a radar in this way or an IR....

Edited April 29, 2010 by ***LeGeNDK1LLER***

[galzohar 31]

Of course I hate spacebar scanning and think it shouldn't be there in serious games, but who cares if some noob wants to use it in his game / on his noob server (no offense intended, some people prefer to learn the game in certain ways and I respect that)? As long as disabling it works properly in higher difficulties (honestly hadn't checked since ACE, but before ACE even on expert you could spacebar scan if you were the group leader).

My point was that the lack of realism with things like spacebar scanning (and many other unrealistic things in the game) is not the main thing that make the game less popular. In fact I believe most people complain about spacebar scanning because they thing it is getting them spotted and killed in their nice little camping spot, and not because it isn't realistic.

Again, I'm a huge fan of realism, but let's face it - This game is mostly not more popular for many reasons that have nothing to do with realism at all, and I bet even some people don't like it because it's more realistic than other games.

[Bulldogs 10]

You have to see the community responses from both sides. Sure we can suggest many things and want them, but the two final factors come down to;

"How many things can BIS possibly consider" - Suggestions usually range in the thousands, and BIS doesn't want to sit down with every idea to figure out if it would be implimentable and how much time and money it would take, especially when a large majority of those ideas can be implimented by the community, and the factor of...

"Do BIS really want it in their game" - You have to remember that BIS created the game the way they want it and whatever suggestions that are brought up have to be what BIS deems "worthy" of being part of the core ArmA 2 game.

So here's a suggestion for the suggestions forums. Occasionally Wolle and other mods will put up a poll as to whether people would like a certain element in ArmA 2 (FreeTrack support, mumble support, etc), so why don't people do the same.

Seeing a thread in the suggestions forums with 100 pages doesn't mean much to a mod when they read a few pages and just see flame wars with the occasional good suggestion, so instead when you have an idea, post it in the suggestions forum with a poll as to who would like to see said idea implimented.

It's a way of making it easier to see how many people actually want it, over how many just want to chat in another thread.

[Alex72 1]

Dont bother explaining it Bulldogs. ;)

Seeing a thread in the suggestions forums with 100 pages doesn't mean much to a mod when they read a few pages and just see flame wars with the occasional good suggestion, so instead when you have an idea, post it in the suggestions forum with a poll as to who would like to see said idea implimented.

This has it's proper place (A2CIT), and i've said it to the person your trying to get through to a couple of times, but it's ignored. It's rather pointless discussing with a wall.

Here we go again: The A2CIT has a voting system for bugs and suggestions. And it was setup for a reason. Most knows about it - some ignore it and keep going on in this forum like broken records. :rolleyes:

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Regarding crosshairs, yes I can setup my own server and play alone without them. Fun? Or I can join a populated server with crosshairs enabled. But then I'm bloody forced to have crosshairs myself (mods not allowed). And that's just sooooo wrong. The problem with crosshairs is that you don't ever have to use the sights, that's how accurate they are. M107 snipers become assaultmen, since there are no real penalties for dragging that monster around. Sniper and marksman rifles should never have crosshairs. I think even more arcadish shooters have that done reasonably right.

Furthermore, crosshairs shouldn't be an on/off thing (at least not in current Arma2), but instead several levels of difficulty where more and more crosshairs are disabled, or a setting for each type. Reason? Because in some cases crosshairs are the only thing you get. Arma2 Javelin and manpads won't show locks without them, and BMP3 sidegunners have no other means of aim.

Regarding spacebar scanning, the same applies. It should be a server controlled feature, but let myself be able to choose more realistic values. But spacebar scanning isn't trivial to get rid of.

The solution:

Let server rules determine the maximum help a player can get. A server should be able to force players to play with a minimum difficulty option (i.e. terrain level/grass low, but not off), but the other more difficult options should still be available to set locally for each player. Server.profile should also be possible for players to inspect, at least when they have joined. "Ah, they are using super AI? Well, guess this server is not for me".

Current behavior:

Server dictates the difficulty setting completely.

Desired behavior:

Server should dictate the minimum allowable difficulty setting, everything above would be up to the player.

Edit:

@***LeGeNDK1LLER***:

In this post, you're quoting me for saying "omg..". Check my post again and search for "omg..". In fact, search the whole thread... :( Note that I haven't edited that post.

You're quoting me for things I never said. Sorry if I've said it in any other posts which I might have edited, dunno.

Edited April 30, 2010 by CarlGustaffa

[*LK1* 10]

omg

it was intentional dude i've simply summarized your post with an "omg"..i could write "skip" or whatever.i've used omg cuz i really dont have liked what you have read.sorry if that has offended your sensibility.

Edited April 30, 2010 by ***LeGeNDK1LLER***

[jw custom 56]

omg

That pretty much sums it up :)

[ladlon 10]

Choice is always a good thing... So many conflicts of 'half want this, half don't' could be remedied by simply making the feature optional.

I guess the only issue comes when you go online, and an option is considered as giving an unfair advantage... Can the online games not control the settings, though? (Honest question, as I don't do online)

[wamingo 1]

Here we go again: The A2CIT has a voting system for bugs and suggestions. And it was setup for a reason. Most knows about it - some ignore it and keep going on in this forum like broken records. :rolleyes:

Why is the CIT not more popular?

Because it's too complex and it's is filled with elitist mil sim vultures

;)

[*LK1* 10]

Why is the CIT not more popular?

Because it's too complex and it's is filled with elitist mil sim vultures

;)

complex?:rolleyes:

give me time i will make my polls..

[Alex72 1]

Why is the CIT not more popular?

Because it's too complex and it's is filled with elitist mil sim vultures

;)

Its not more complex than to register one self and then just make sure you present the bug or suggestion in a easy clean way (according to the guide lines) so its easy for BI to make any sense of it. :) These forums gets a bit messy and you can only think about it for yourself being a developer having to read through everything in here to find what they need.

The problem is also that most posts here in the forum doesnt follow the rules BI themselves want wich is good simple repro steps so they can reproduce the issue fast and easy. Otherwise it takes too much time and many "suggestions" and "bug reports" get lost among all the posts.

The A2CIT was made for us. Seems many dont want to go through the "hassle" and present the issues with some thaught behind, and so we have tons and tons of complaining posts instead wich no one cares about. Personaly i think its sad as i would really want to see more people that like this game to help out. Its not our duty - definately not - but if one spends a lot of time in here complaining that time could be spent giving BI some real info on the matter. :)

[*LK1* 10]

The A2CIT

a2cit=?

[Zipper5 74]

Arma 2 Community Issue Tracker.

[LJF 0]

Again, I'm a huge fan of realism, but let's face it - This game is mostly not more popular for many reasons that have nothing to do with realism at all, and I bet even some people don't like it because it's more realistic than other games.

Very true, however, I think that also works the other way, I think many could have been turned off because it's not realistic enough to justify playing something not mainstream.

Where Bad Company 2 has sound and high production value and all that, ArmA2 ultimately has it's realism. At the moment I'm not playing a lot of ArmA2 for that very reason - because the amount of realism doesn't justify me playing with lower (overall) visuals, much lower sound quality, and a whole host of other things. At the moment I really want to play a realistic shooter [in mp], but what ArmA2 offers in terms of realism doesn't make up for what I lose playing a non-mainstream game, in this regard, I'm stuck playing BC2.

Could just be me though, also, I'm well aware of ACE2 (love it), however, finding a good server with ACE2 is practically impossible [in Australia], and I really don't have enough time to join a clan. What ends up happening? I play BC2, for the time being at least.

Actually, does anyone know of an Oceanic clan with flexible requirements? I'd love good coop or preferably PvP with ACE2 without having to train or do any of the other stuff a lot of them want you to do, yet at the same time, I'd love to play in a realistic, authentic and semi-serious environment. The thing is, I don't think such a thing exists.

Overall, ArmA2 is not more popular for a great many reasons, I just with it'd go further towards what makes it a great game, namely the realism, and I'd also love to see it implement more authenticity, which could be another reason - playing in Chernarus is good, however, playing in Chechnya would be much much more immersing.

[maturin 12]

I'd also love to see it implement more authenticity, which could be another reason - playing in Chernarus is good, however, playing in Chechnya would be much much more immersing.

Is playing in Chechnya that different from playing in a re-named doppleganger of Chechyna? Either way, I'd shell out in a heartbeat for a Balkans or Caucasus expansion.

[johncage 30]

my take: the performance is shitty.

[Zipper5 74]

Thank you for your in-depth, detailed and constructive response. We need more posts like yours in this thread, zachanscom. See people - this is how you help.

/Sarcasm :rolleyes:

[Contact 10]

In my opinion, its a marketing/advertising problem. When I bought Arma II i didnt even know it existed. I think I went to buy Empire: Total War and saw Arma II on the shelf and thought hmm this looks better so I bought arma 2 instead.

And Im glad I did because no lie, Its the best game Ive got.

I paid £19.99 brand new from GAME and it was worth every penny! & I will definatley be buying Operation Arrowhead

Edited May 2, 2010 by Contact

[Flash Thunder 10]

In my opinion, its a marketing/advertising problem. When I bought Arma II i didnt even know it existed. I think I went to buy Empire: Total War and saw Arma II on the shelf and thought hmm this looks better so I bought arma 2 instead.

And Im glad I did because no lie, Its the best game Ive got.

I paid £19.99 brand new from GAME and it was worth every penny! & I will definatley be buying Operation Arrowhead

Thats nice to hear, I never knew Operation Flashpoint or Arma existed either until I went into Best Buy to look at some PC games primarily Home world 2 which they dont have anymore :banghead:

Anyways im glad I've found it, already got more than 400 hours clocked into Arma2 not counting all the testing ive done which exceeds over 48 hours.

PS: didn't have Xfire on all the time I played A2, so its very inaccurate

This game is ablast when I can get my buds from the army on, we always make fun of the voices.

Calling my friend who is a second lieutenant a "Dude".

ROFL

[LJF 0]

... some PC games primarily Home world 2 which they dont have anymore :banghead:

Ah, so it's not just me :(