Why is this game not more popular?

[CarlGustaffa 4]

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:

If it was a response to the threads title, I think it is a valid one. I know several who has dumped this game due to performance reasons.

[*LK1* 10]

If it was a response to the threads title, I think it is a valid one. I know several who has dumped this game due to performance reasons.

*

sometimes you dont need thousands of words to explain something.

to stay in topic i would tell the lag/netcode in MP which makes shooting enemies very difficult.

Edited May 3, 2010 by ***LeGeNDK1LLER***

[Zipper5 74]

But how many 1000s of times must people post the same exact thing over and over again? It's not like any of us don't know there are performance issues with the game, the idea is looking in to how to fix them. By simply saying "performance sucks" you aren't helping at all, and he's not the first person to do so.

The idea behind this community is we work together to try and help each other and, especially, to help BIS. But there are many of you who don't want to help at all and simply want to hate on the game, no matter how many times your argument may have been said before.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Zipper5 are you able to stop your naive fanboy babbling at least in this thread? Or do we get here the same fanboy shit like it was on DR forums? :rolleyes:

People buy games because they like to play + enjoy them without any problems. They dont like to be somekind of testing dudes. This thread is about the feelings, meanings and opinions on "Why is this game not more popular?". So please respect other peoples responses without repeating your babbling over and over again. It doesnt help either.

Guess that A2 is popular enough, otherwise BIS would have dropped OA and moved on developing other projects.

[Zipper5 74]

I'm not a fanboy, and I'm not against the purpose of this thread. I fully support it, and I find it to be an interesting discussion. But why can't people be constructive? It's no use saying "performance sux", people want to know why you think it sucks, your system specifications, what version you're using, what addons you're running, etc. It seems, however, that it is easier for people to just say that it sucks but offer no other information to help improve it. I have a hard time respecting someone's opinion when they give no resources to back it up.

Human nature I guess.

[jw custom 56]

Guess that A2 is popular enough, otherwise BIS would have dropped OA and moved on developing other projects.

True, i think the title should have been "Why is ArmA 2's MP part not more popular".

I'm sure there's a lot of people playing ArmA 2 single player and many of them probably never even visit these forums.

[Inkompetent 0]

True, i think the title should have been "Why is ArmA 2's MP part not more popular".

I'm sure there's a lot of people playing ArmA 2 single player and many of them probably never even visit these forums.

Goes for every single game that the majority of the players never visit the official forums and simply 'play the game'. Nothing unique about ArmA2's situation at all.

And since ArmA2 (unlike for example the Battlefield series, regardless of branch of it) isn't specifically tailored to be pretty much exclusively played in multiplayer you'll see a lot of people that doesn't buy it for that purpose.

Then of course there are people that'd probably like multiplayer. They just don't know it yet. Those are harder to catch. But the state of ArmA2 public multiplayer (which is to a great part to blame on admins, to a degree on publically released multiplayer missions, and to a degree on the still pretty much broken VON) is hardly anything I'd see making most people interested in multiplayer. Rather the opposite.

[*LK1* 10]

I'm not a fanboy, and I'm not against the purpose of this thread. I fully support it, and I find it to be an interesting discussion. But why can't people be constructive? It's no use saying "performance sux", people want to know why you think it sucks, your system specifications, what version you're using, what addons you're running, etc. It seems, however, that it is easier for people to just say that it sucks but offer no other information to help improve it. I have a hard time respecting someone's opinion when they give no resources to back it up.

Human nature I guess.

guess you dont have simply tollerated the word "sux",oh well but mate take it easy :D.

personally i really dont know hot to explain in a specifical way why the performance of the game sux.i can give just a generic response. and surely im not able to find way to fix it.

edit:another reason flew in mind to explain why this game is not more popular:

stats has already proved most of the people is retard;that why this game is not more popular.

cuz most of the people can satisfy their dumb inclination with cod 6 or bc2 surely not with A2.

feel liks many people will agree with this last statament.

Edited May 3, 2010 by ***LeGeNDK1LLER***

[Scrub 0]

True, i think the title should have been "Why is ArmA 2's MP part not more popular".

I'm sure there's a lot of people playing ArmA 2 single player and many of them probably never even visit these forums.

Wouldn't it be great if there was a bit of an incorporated RSS feed or news tracking service inside the ARMA GUI? Solidworks has one by default, and that is where I get most of my info on happenings and events.

Hell, just a link for the forums would be an improvement, but updates or team adverts (like Armaholics top banner) would become a nexus for players to easily find like people and squads to team up with. The more customizable the better.

I mean the MP list is great to see what is happening online currently, and also the cause of hesitation joining a server with 2 players. But a ticker tape showing registered squad events ingame stating that the 'two player' server is going to be host to a large event in an hour or so will create gravity. That is a good deal of what is missing. Lots of servers, no inclination to what one will be populated (population graph ingame will help too ;) (hell, a guy can dream, can't he?). And not reaching out to those who are timid to go online. Ingame networking and community tools win hands down.

Edited May 3, 2010 by Scrub

[Flash Thunder 10]

I'm not a fanboy, and I'm not against the purpose of this thread. I fully support it, and I find it to be an interesting discussion. But why can't people be constructive? It's no use saying "performance sux", people want to know why you think it sucks, your system specifications, what version you're using, what addons you're running, etc. It seems, however, that it is easier for people to just say that it sucks but offer no other information to help improve it. I have a hard time respecting someone's opinion when they give no resources to back it up.

Human nature I guess.

I agree with teh Zipper.

I was thinking again about why is this game not so popular? I mean everyone over at COD bitches about no "Dedicated servers" no mod support/custom missions, the no realism element in the franchise now. They could easily like this game right?

Well one thing for sure is the system requirements are pretty steep.

PVP mode needs a huge face lift I think, more official support to help bring in the new players without confusing them to death by having them join all these idiotic domination games, or run around like a headless chicken with a SMAW game.

The way "that other game" did the Multiplayer (not the no JIP and Dedicated support thats just Epic Fail) but the way they limited the island into little "maps", makes it less intimidating people will feel like they will shoot more and run and drive less.

You could do 2km, 4km, 10km, and whole island maps, then for the modes you will have to innovate alittle BIS, because the MP modes you provided as far I seen are just crud.

Making some modes special from anything else out their and advertising the ***k out of it!

One mode you could spawn in a group of Littlebirds and be deployed to a base and you have to defend from attackers (a battefield esque conquest mode) but with cool helicopter rides to spawn, something like that.

After you create a few unique modes for your multiplayer, its time to Face Lift the User Interface. One you pop into Multiplayer section, you log in to your profile, be able to change all your options, map preferences etc.

Add in a built in Friends list would help people connect with their friends, pretty much a clone copy of BFBC 2 UI.

Being able to filter only Official content and or Custom made content like Domi and evo

Polish the gamemodes to feel like they werent tacked on like the ones we have now. And most importantly you got to make the "player" feel like he has accomplished something. Maybe some kind of ranking system and a accolade/Stat system.

Shooter players like to brag about their KD well in this game since its a Simulator, your KD would show alot more Skill than it would in some other dolphin dive corridor shooters.

I know some of you will say, Flash Arma 2 is a simulator not an arcade game, well thats why the game isnt so popular, introducing some arcade elements like Stat tracking some kind of Ranking system will not break the overall core of the game, but it will most likely open a new area for players and market to play a game that "Rewards Teamwork, punishes the Lonewolf" and still stays a simulator the only thing changing is the fact that the game will be more fast paced since it is suppose to be a video game, keep the action hot and the fear coming.

Something I like about "that other games" multiplayer greatly (the fast jump in games, it never felt like an arcade game) but due to the game having so many flaws in its design its not really playable and already nobody plays it anymore. :)

Basically you create Awesome killer gamemodes that stand out from other games, create incentive to play the game online, make it easier to just get on and have fun. You can load up Arma 2 fire up MP and get on a server with a bunch of guys and have some incentivized teamwork war experience. :D

Please tell me what you think of this.

@Scrub That's another thing incorporate an in-game news feed. It could showcase the best custom mods, missions, BIS events and News, patch news etc.

Edited May 3, 2010 by Flash Thunder

[sic-disaster 311]

Well what the MP could use is a bit of an overhaul in terms of AI movement.

Even on low ping servers, you'll see AI warp or not move fluently, which causes you to miss a lot of your shots beyond your own control.

This is different from the singleplayer where this obviously does not happen.

However, another big part what is taking away from the mp experience is public domination missions.

Domination can be fun in a well-organised group of people, and obviously most of the time this is not the case in most public servers. Domination is too open in it's nature, resulting in people walking off to nowhere and accomplishing nothing, while others might get raped because they lack back-up.

I think that if public servers use focussed missions, the experience will increase tenfold.

When there is only one objective, people get drawn toward that objective alone and just from standing together some more natural teamwork might evolve.

People get too scattered in Domination, removing most chances for teamwork.

And obviously, when you are all by yourself and cannot find any opposing forces to engage this is a very dull affair, people will leave and not touch MP again, because it's much more fun to play with bots in this case.

[Scrub 0]

In those scattered sessions, wouldn't it be great if the intro to the Domination would introduce you to your team leader and teammates? I mean you usually pick a fireteam position and have a TL. Something basic like this in Arma 2 would nudge players into forming up and playing a part besides Rambo, and people that pick TL slots to act their part. (read: play like you have a purpose!)

@Flash: Wouldn't that be great? Load up OA, find out what's happening, click, and you're there! Erm. Here! lol.

If this included Six-Updater technology and BIS maintained the repository (or allowed Mod Dev access) Almost all issues we currently face would cease and desist!

[wamingo 1]

I know some of you will say, Flash Arma 2 is a simulator not an arcade game, well thats why the game isnt so popular

Come now. You're asking for the game's entrails to be ripped out and replaced with kittens and lightly dressed nightelves...

It's been said before: Unofficial missions, servers, mods and all kinds of things that makes arma special can and probably will make nonsense of stat-tracking, achiements and that sort of stuff.

And none of the other things you suggest make the actual "game" better or more accessible, either. A proper filter for addons would do more than any of things you suggest.

The reality is that running for 5-10 minutes, without seing as much as a mosquito to entertain you only to be sniped in the face, throwing you right back to where you started, is something very few people find enjoyment in.

Which is why I agree with SIC - I won't berate the designers, they've done infinitely better than I could have, but the mission designs are simply not good enough and must take part of the blame.

[Flash Thunder 10]

The reality is that running for 5-10 minutes, without seing as much as a mosquito to entertain you only to be sniped in the face, throwing you right back to where you started, is something very few people find enjoyment in.

another thing thats annoying people dont want to waste their time, I call that wasting time.

making maps small like in that "other game" and limiting the amount of sniper teams could solve the issue, and coming up a drastically better spawning system.

One where I dont have to run for miles and miles.

And spawning weapons and vehicles dynamically around your current area would help alot too.

[Bulldogs 10]

It's possible that the game would be more popular if the maps were smaller like BF and COD, but then I wouldn't like the game.

I guess though that there could be a couple of infantry based islands by default. Similar to Utes but small and heavily city based for those that don't want open warfare. Although for that there's always the deathmatch style modes that force you to stay in an area.

[Daniel 0]

Same with that guy that posted his frustration in the Off Topic section.

ArmA2 is a high fidelity war game. The engine and the community have been in development since OFP, and as such, there's not a game out there that can touch it. At the same time, to get the most out of it, you're either going to get very frustrated, or you need to get in with some friendly veterans who will help you.

It's a double-edged sword in terms of new players trying to get to grips with it, but it's the price you pay for something with as much open ended potential as ArmA2.

Any idiot can play COD or BF, but even with mods your experience is going to be limited.

With ArmA2 and it's modding community, there really are no limits in terms of content, and the community's been pushing the engine since OFP was released. The trade off means elements such as installing and configuring mods, finding a performance sweet spot, mission making, and squad command can be understandably frustrating to newcomers.

Edited May 4, 2010 by Daniel

[Inkompetent 0]

Maps can be limited by missions makers. The mission can be confined to a particular zone and it's easy to kill people stepping out of it. There's even a BIS-made function for it in the in-game functions library.

I do indeed think though that it can be good to limit the freedom. People see the huge map, and even though the mission is just intended to be played on a small part it might be intimidating for a more casual player, or one not used to the works of ArmA.

And as far as PvP goes too much freedom can be a game-killer unless the mission is made to be low-intensity. If everyone gets too spread out and it's hard to find something to shoot at the shooter-game loses its charm to a lot (most?) players.

[Binkowski 25]

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.

i would love to fight in chechnya. killing chechen rebels is very fun.

[Comrade12 0]

You know I think, I the people who made arma 2 are from checkoslovakia I think and the people who made the mainstream games are more USA I believe.

I think that makes a little bit of difference dont you think?

Dont get me started on mainstream stuff. ugh.

[Inkompetent 0]

Generally at the moment the non-indie, non-mainstream developers are from eastern/central Europe. Most other developers with a somewhat of a name have become part of Ubisoft, Electronic Arts, Codemasters, or some other big corporation, and since they are big (and thus have shareholders to make happy or the company won't be worth the toilet paper they use) they want safe bets to put their money on - i.e. mainstream.

I'm so glad that developers with some kind of integrity (like BIS) exists to try to make what they want to make, not what a huge distributor that only can see '$$$' and that ignores quality want to have made.

But even then, off-topic as that is, I'd say that one of the main things that still need to get worked on is the implementation of VON, since the game either needs that, or other supporting system to ease communication, built in out-of-the-box to be more accessible.

Be it something like that radial/communication menus from the Battlefield games, or whatever one can come up with. Just something that - if VON won't work reliably - provides a sufficient level of communication anyway.

[metalcraze 290]

Well to be honest BIS is just standing in the same place for the past 9 years. ArmA2 is just OFP with mods. OA does look promising though because of BIS making gameplay aspects more "detailed" or something (FLIR, laser range finders, new radar etc). But then again mods already have a stuff like this.

I wish Bohemia finally added some kind of physical engine (like PhysX, which iirc BIAustralia tried to implement in VBS2) because the physics modelling we have in ArmA2 is the same as in OFP - horrible. Yeah BIS made it to look like you are actually damaging all those buildings by changing their models, but they could've done so much more with the proper physics.

[Scrub 0]

Well to be honest BIS is just standing in the same place for the past 9 years. ArmA2 is just OFP with mods. OA does look promising though because of BIS making gameplay aspects more "detailed" or something (FLIR, laser range finders, new radar etc). But then again mods already have a stuff like this.

I wish Bohemia finally added some kind of physical engine (like PhysX, which iirc BIAustralia tried to implement in VBS2) because the physics modelling we have in ArmA2 is the same as in OFP - horrible. Yeah BIS made it to look like you are actually damaging all those buildings by changing their models, but they could've done so much more with the proper physics.

Not this again.. its been done, call it Dragon Rising. All flash, no heart. go play ofp and tell me its the same. Not even close.

[Comrade12 0]

Well to be honest BIS is just standing in the same place for the past 9 years. ArmA2 is just OFP with mods. OA does look promising though because of BIS making gameplay aspects more "detailed" or something (FLIR, laser range finders, new radar etc). But then again mods already have a stuff like this.

I think BIS has done alot of stuff from ofp. I like BIS because they listen to the community, like all the features that where originaly mods seen the light in arma 2.

As for physics I think your right.

All flash, no heart

LOL I like that. I bought that game.

[polecat.uk 11]

585,399 views at one of the stickes, seems alot of ppl are looking at this game how many make it popular?

[metalcraze 290]

Not this again.. its been done, call it Dragon Rising. All flash, no heart.

Dragon Rising is very ugly in many aspects.

What I've meant is that in a simulator that tries to be realistic the lack of proper physics is a huge flaw. Like, for example, heavily armored wooden village buildings or walls that can take any amount of HE fire.

go play ofp and tell me its the same. Not even close.

With some mods some aspects are even better. With WGL you still have a more complex wound system than what you have in vanilla (the better one is only in the direct WGL sequel - ACE, as well as many other things that is), GroupLink and SLX mods that vastly improved the AI are present in OFP (AI can flank you just as fine, it can call for help - something vanilla AA2 still didn't have, even drag wounded from the killzone on its own - AA2 doesn't have it, craters from explosions which can be used for cover - AA2 doesn't have it).

Little details like leaning, grass, even lots of weapons - it's all there.

So yeah ArmA2 is like OFP with mods. If we won't count the flashy graphics.

Don't you think it's time AA2 became something more than a game engine for the ACE team?

Edited May 5, 2010 by metalcraze