Why is this game not more popular?

[avibird 1 154]

Why is this game not more popular was the question here are the answers.

I not asking you to change the way you play but this game will never be more popular. Yes, I know this game will never be like COD/BF with the number of players but it could be a liitle more ie GRAW/RB numbers but most of the vet community are unwilling to change a liitle or see what the real problem is so this game will stay with the low numbers of players. Over time more players will go to different games and this community will be even smaller just look at the numbres from OFP days - ARMA1 and now ARMA2. Yes, the game is so much better but the numbers are not. You must ask yourself why.

Yes, most vet players are very closed minded and will attack someone not just disagree with them.

[galzohar 31]

Good PvP missions would actually see the light of day if and only if groups (preferably more than 1) of players that actually have the ability to fill them will be willing to try them, comment about them to the mission maker, wait for him to update them and repeat the process. Making your own mission and uploading it into armaholic will probably result in it not being played at all, or being played with a lot less players than it was designed for. Designing a mission that will actually work for even as few as a 5vs5 is very hard, yet getting more than 6 players to test it is also very hard. Believe me - I tried. I really wish someone would come and say "your mission sucks because X/Y/Z" but even that did not happen. I simply got absolutely no comments at all, or at best I got some comments from people who showed interest but didn't actually play it so it doesn't really matter.

[An Fiach 10]

The problems with this game are the source of its unpopularity. Making the game more user friendly doesn't mean having to dumb it down. It already has a steep learning curve but as was said, you shouldn't need to educate yourself on computer tech in order to play it.

The large gamer numbers also are into online play. People play online to play against people, not computers. The campaign and single missions are lousy anyway. It would be so simple to improve the server browser and for BIS to include some default missions that will appeal to the FPS crowd. The mods are great, we all love them, but newcomers will not bother with mods if the vanilla game leaves them disinterested. You can take SBSMAC's script pack and in short time make a great Red Orchestra style PvP mission on Utes. Good performance, good game play. You could have about 6 of those and it would get more gamers right out of the box. It would get gamers interested and from there they would explore the rest of the game.

Quality control is another issue. BIS QC is horrid. It isn't fair to compare it to BF2 but we all know it had and still has performance issues and the number of game stopping bugs at release was inexcusable. We might be willing to accept these flaws because of our desire to experience the openness this game provides but BIS is a large enough company that they can catch these things before release. You can bet they don't try to pass off VBS2 on the military in the same condition.

[MeatEtr 0]

Not sure, I think it's lag/latency issues is why MP hasn't taken off. I've always lagged playing Arma 1 and now with Arma 2(DSL). I think I was on 56k way back when OFP was released, so never played that MP. Pretty much all of my gaming buds had lag issues with OFP/Arma series. It is also why I so rarely play online.

It's certainly not because the game is sim-like or too realistic. Realism mods are always popular with other games like BF2(Project Reality)and CoD(forgot name). Also look at Red Orchestra's solid community. There is a definite and size-able crowd out there that love accessible realism or sim games.

Bottom line, at least for BI studio, there's plenty of people buying the game. Regardless if only a fraction of those people play online. If it's profitable then we will continue to see these games.

Edit: Oh and yeah, that advertising and marketing thing. I'm curious as to how many units they sold of OFPDragon Rising compared to Arma2. I saw tons of commercials for OFPDR and none for Arma2. We all know Arma2 is a vastly superior game too. But I'd be willing to bet OFPDR sold more though.

Edited February 14, 2010 by MeatEtr

[Zipper5 74]

You can bet they don't try to pass off VBS2 on the military in the same condition.

Of course not, it's not flawless either though. But once again, VBS2 is made by Bohemia Interactive Australia (BIA), and I'm sure that most of the funds that Bohemia Interactive have go to BIA and the development of VBS2, rather than to BIS and the development of ArmA II. Therefore, BIA has more funds to make sure that VBS2 is as bug-free as possible. This is probably not the case with BIS and ArmA II. VBS2 simply has a much greater return of investment.

[HyperU2 11]

Because it's not on a console.

[LugNut 10]

In all the FPS games I've played in MP, when you join a server running custom mods or maps, you automatically get redirected to DL what you need if you don't already have it. If you already have it or most of it, you just DL what you don't have. In the case of ACE for example, you'd DL it once and then could join any server using all or part of it. You could chose to DL at the time of joining, or you could DL it independently on your own. It's pretty simple really, you don't need to know anything about mods, how to install them, where they go or have to update them, it's all automatic. It'd make is SO much easier for noobs like me to get into the game, and easier for potential good gamers to become part of the community.

ARMA2's gameplay itself would keep the RNG idiots out, as been said, they want to drop right into a firefight, they don't want to think, stategize, communicate, travel, learn to shoot etc. They'd join a server and quickly tire of it.

I've never had an experience DL'ing trojans or viruses in a mod from a clans server, maybe I've just stayed in the good parts of town..... :rolleyes:

[An Fiach 10]

Of course not, it's not flawless either though. But once again, VBS2 is made by Bohemia Interactive Australia (BIA), and I'm sure that most of the funds that Bohemia Interactive have go to BIA and the development of VBS2, rather than to BIS and the development of ArmA II. Therefore, BIA has more funds to make sure that VBS2 is as bug-free as possible. This is probably not the case with BIS and ArmA II. VBS2 simply has a much greater return of investment.

You have to remember, it is the same company. VBS2 is based on Real Virtuality, which was developed for games, include the fact that they have their own MOCAP and sound studios, they aren't lacking funding. I don't expect things to be perfect, and I love the game, but we also have to be willing to call them on it when they drop the ball. This has been happening since OFP and now they have a new game in the works that will run on the same engine, I expect, and if they have the same issues will make even more people angry. You don't accept that kind of sloppiness from the guy making your $3 burger, why put up with it from someone that gets $50, plus tons of word of mouth advertising and even defense from the insane trolls that bash them??

[sic-disaster 311]

Why is this game not more popular was the question here are the answers.

I not asking you to change the way you play but this game will never be more popular. Yes, I know this game will never be like COD/BF with the number of players but it could be a liitle more ie GRAW/RB numbers but most of the vet community are unwilling to change a liitle or see what the real problem is so this game will stay with the low numbers of players. Over time more players will go to different games and this community will be even smaller just look at the numbres from OFP days - ARMA1 and now ARMA2. Yes, the game is so much better but the numbers are not. You must ask yourself why.

Yes, most vet players are very closed minded and will attack someone not just disagree with them.

Dear god, don't encourage this game to be more like GRAW or Vegas...

Those were the killing blows to the great Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six series...

You are basically asking BIS to do a Dragon Rising...

[Zipper5 74]

You have to remember, it is the same company. VBS2 is based on Real Virtuality, which was developed for games, include the fact that they have their own MOCAP and sound studios, they aren't lacking funding. I don't expect things to be perfect, and I love the game, but we also have to be willing to call them on it when they drop the ball. This has been happening since OFP and now they have a new game in the works that will run on the same engine, I expect, and if they have the same issues will make even more people angry. You don't accept that kind of sloppiness from the guy making your $3 burger, why put up with it from someone that gets $50, plus tons of word of mouth advertising and even defense from the insane trolls that bash them??

BIA don't seem to have their own MOCAP studios, or, at least, don't seem to use them since most of the normal animations in VBS2 are the same as ArmA's. They might be the same company but it makes every bit of sense for said company to put the majority of it's funding into a popular $1000 military training simulator, than a $40 commercial game. I don't like it, but I understand it.

I don't hate the stuff that BIS are doing. Why else would I be playing their games still? I don't mind the sloppiness at the start because I know BIS will make every effort to fix it in the coming years. Nothing else does what BIS' games do, which is what allows me to be incredibly patient with them. On the other hand, you can find $3 burgers in many different places. :rolleyes:

Edited February 15, 2010 by Zipper5

[An Fiach 10]

Don't compare this game to DCS, it doesn't come close, this game doesn't accurately simulate anything and its openness is intended to appeal to a wide audience. And nobody is saying Arma 2 should be simple.

I find it irksome that there are people on here calling others "elitests" while at the same time trying to dictate how the game is played

if you want PvP stuff, design it. If you can't/won't do that, then there are plenty of PvP based, modern combat games to choose from

If you can't spot the irony here, you are the problem, not the solution.

I don't see why you take offense at people wanting a server browser that not only is large enough to be readable but also have some useful functionality to it. Or someone suggesting that the basic missions that nobody plays be turned into something that would actually interest potential new players. Nobody bought OFP thinking it would have great mods and longevity and plenty were turned off by the bugs and lousy multiplayer. People are online right now still playing it.

The majority of ArmA players came from those "other PvP based games", this community and even the game, survives on player made content. What is wrong with wanting to attract talent from other game communities? Especially when more and more people look to the internet for their entertainment.

You want generic PvP? Look no further than what BIS provided stock. Put 8 players in a small square with some obstacles and call it a DM mission. Why are you telling everyone else they have to play the game the way you want them to? Just because BIS provided you with content right out of the box and you are happy doesn't mean everyone else is or should be. I agree, making missions is essential, so in your opinion the game should come with no scenarios or campaign, it should just be an editor and some content to play with.

Personally I'd like to see more PvP players attracted to this game, but they never will be because the game doesn't show people right out of the box that it can be a great PvP game. Some people like a challenge rather than spending night after night in their parents' basement making themselves feel like heroes by fending off a lemming horde with their machine gun. I enjoy all of the different game modes, including those created by the community but PvP matches do not have enough players to make them great and abundant. This is because people believe this game incapable of great PvP. That is simply not true.

Anyone that loves this game should have no objections about improving it or attracting more players which equates to more money for BIS to develop games and more potential modders. I don't know about you, but I'd like to see guys that can do this with crap battlefield games move on to mod for our community. Even if you don't like PvP, stuff modeled for PvP can be used in other game modes and vice versa. In ArmA , more is better.

---------- Post added at 05:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:07 AM ----------

BIA don't seem to have their own MOCAP studios, or, at least, don't seem to use them since most of the normal animations in VBS2 are the same as ArmA's. They might be the same company but it makes every bit of sense for said company to put the majority of it's funding into a popular $1000 military training simulator, than a $40 commercial game. I don't like it, but I understand it.

I don't hate the stuff that BIS are doing. Why else would I be playing their games still? I don't mind the sloppiness at the start because I know BIS will make every effort to fix it in the coming years. Nothing else does what BIS' games do, which is what allows me to be incredibly patient with them. On the other hand, you can find $3 burgers in many different places. :rolleyes:

http://pro.bistudio.com/index.php/services/motion-capture.html

You've been around a while, we are talking about attracting new blood, not trying to hang on to the dwindling OFP crowd. For people already familiar with BIS games, it doesn't matter much. To newcomers, it matters a lot.

[Zipper5 74]

That is BIS' offices just outside of Prague, is it not? BIA is based in Australia. ;)

I'm all for attracting new blood, I just talked to someone playing Modern Warfare 2, of all the places, about how he hated Dragon Rising and how he didn't know about ArmA II (he thought DR was OFP's sequel, as usual...). Long story short, he's going to check out ArmA II now.

I am not for attracting people who will come on and start making posts about awesome kills they made, or hacks they've made, or hackers they found, or scoreboard comparisons, etc. which is common with most "gamers" today. If you are a simulator fan you should be used to simulators coming out with hiccups, and that most of them get patched. If you aren't, well, then you haven't played many simulators.

And how exactly is ArmA II not accurately simulating infantry combat? Jesus, this community is getting incredibly anal...

Edited February 15, 2010 by Zipper5

[bangtail 0]

Don't compare this game to DCS, it doesn't come close, this game doesn't accurately simulate anything and its openness is intended to appeal to a wide audience. And nobody is saying Arma 2 should be simple.

Don't compare RO to ArmA 2, it doesn't come close. Further, I wasn't comparing the games, I was pointing out that your attitude would not be welcomed there (ED forums) either.

If you can't spot the irony here, you are the problem, not the solution.

Irony? Not really. If you like RO so much and it suits your needs gameplay wise, why must we change ArmA 2 to be more like RO? Why can't you just play game x and be happy?

I don't see why you take offense at people wanting a server browser that not only is large enough to be readable but also have some useful functionality to it. Or someone suggesting that the basic missions that nobody plays be turned into something that would actually interest potential new players. Nobody bought OFP thinking it would have great mods and longevity and plenty were turned off by the bugs and lousy multiplayer. People are online right now still playing it.

ArmA 2 is not OFP and people did buy ArmA 2 for the mods and longevity so you don't really have a point there.

When did I ever say I was against a server browser?

The majority of ArmA players came from those "other PvP based games", this community and even the game, survives on player made content. What is wrong with wanting to attract talent from other game communities? Especially when more and more people look to the internet for their entertainment.

Again, this is just an assumption on your part. How do you know where everyone came from? Talent from other communities? It seems like you want to encourage a huge PvP base and that is not synonymous with talent I'm afraid. If they are so talented, why isn't there more user designed PvP content?

I don't want to hear about how it's because the game is flawed because the Co-oP crowd don't seem to be hindered by these "limitations".

You want generic PvP? Look no further than what BIS provided stock. Put 8 players in a small square with some obstacles and call it a DM mission. Why are you telling everyone else they have to play the game the way you want them to? Just because BIS provided you with content right out of the box and you are happy doesn't mean everyone else is or should be. I agree, making missions is essential, so in your opinion the game should come with no scenarios or campaign, it should just be an editor and some content to play with.

And just because you and a few others selfishly want the game changed to suit you does that mean I have to agree with you?

I'd be happy to buy the editor as a stand alone and I pretty much do anyway, the campaign and SP were not a consideration when I made the purchase.

Personally I'd like to see more PvP players attracted to this game, but they never will be because the game doesn't show people right out of the box that it can be a great PvP game. Some people like a challenge rather than spending night after night in their parents' basement making themselves feel like heroes by fending off a lemming horde with their machine gun. I enjoy all of the different game modes, including those created by the community but PvP matches do not have enough players to make them great and abundant. This is because people believe this game incapable of great PvP. That is simply not true.

This says it all and is the reason why you and your ilk can stick to RO or whatever. Instead of a discussion you resort to ad hominem attacks on people who don't share the same opinion as you. Thankfully, PvPers seem to be too lazy to generate their own content so ArmA 2 will never be a game that will attract your type en masse.

All I can say is, thank goodness.

Anyone that loves this game should have no objections about improving it or attracting more players which equates to more money for BIS to develop games and more potential modders. I don't know about you, but I'd like to see guys that can do this with crap battlefield games move on to mod for our community. Even if you don't like PvP, stuff modeled for PvP can be used in other game modes and vice versa. In ArmA , more is better.

PvP modes and attracting more PvP players != improvement IMHO.

---------- Post added at 05:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:07 AM ----------

http://pro.bistudio.com/index.php/services/motion-capture.html

You've been around a while, we are talking about attracting new blood, not trying to hang on to the dwindling OFP crowd. For people already familiar with BIS games, it doesn't matter much. To newcomers, it matters a lot.

Wait, didn't you say that the "majority" of A2 players come from "those other PvP games". If that's the case, then why are you now trying to imply that ArmA 2 relies on that "dwinding OFP crowd"?

I reposted this original text of the message that Anfiach replied to.

I had deleted it as I couldn't be bothered with this discussion but since he somehow managed to respond to it after it had been deleted, I will repost it for the sake of context.

Original Text of the message I deleted below

As you correctly point out, the masses want to have their hands held through the same generic content.

Go tell ED to make Black Shark simple and see what kind of response you get from that community.

I find it irksome that there are people on here calling others "elitests" while at the same time trying to dictate how the game is played and even going as far as to tell you with whom you should play it.

BIS provides the canvas, what you do with it is up to you. If you take that aspect of the game away and make it a linear experience, you might as well just call it BF3 or whatever.

The game has some problems (many of them due to it's open ended design), I don't think many people here try to deny that. I deal with the problems because I know BIS is very committed to improving the game and are actively updating it. I can't tell you the amount of times I've felt like cranking the keyboard due to OFP et al, it's all part of the fun ;)

As for the connection/bandwidth/netcode problems, I can definitely sympathize with those but at the end of the day, why don't I have them and why don't any of the people I play with have them? I had some small desync problems up until 1.02 but I have had no issues with connection since then.

As Zipper said, if you want PvP stuff, design it. If you can't/won't do that, then there are plenty of PvP based, modern combat games to choose from that you can simply log in and play. If all you are looking for is generic PvP, I'd suggest that ArmA 2 is not for you (not at present anyway). Not every game has to be modified to suit your specific play style.

I'm getting a little tired of being told how and with whom I should play. It's not up to the game or the community at large to adapt to you, it's up to you to adapt to the game and it's community.

Edited February 15, 2010 by BangTail

[An Fiach 10]

That is BIS' offices just outside of Prague, is it not? BIA is based in Australia. ;)

I'm all for attracting new blood, I just talked to someone playing Modern Warfare 2, of all the places, about how he hated Dragon Rising and how he didn't know about ArmA II (he thought DR was OFP's sequel, as usual...). Long story short, he's going to check out ArmA II now.

I am not for attracting people who will come on and start making posts about awesome kills they made, or hacks they've made, or hackers they found, or scoreboard comparisons, etc. which is common with most "gamers" today. If you are a simulator fan you should be used to simulators coming out with hiccups, and that most of them get patched. If you aren't, well, then you haven't played many simulators.

And how exactly is ArmA II not accurately simulating infantry combat? Jesus, this community is getting incredibly anal...

Man, seriously, the location of an office within a company is rather irrelevant. Hiccups is an overly generous way to describe the condition of this game when it was released. If you are more concerned about people making forum post that you are not forced to read than you are about having a flourishing community, well, that's your problem. Nobody is talking about adding bunny hopping capabilities to ArmA 2, time has proven that those not interested in what this game has to offer, will leave . You have to get people to try it though.

How isn't it not accurately simulating infantry combat? I do believe it has taken ACE 2 to add some important aspects. I was making the point that this game doesn't strive to accurately simulate any one thing, it instead focuses on creating an overall atmosphere. It does it very well.

[bangtail 0]

Man, seriously, the location of an office within a company is rather irrelevant. Hiccups is an overly generous way to describe the condition of this game when it was released. If you are more concerned about people making forum post that you are not forced to read than you are about having a flourishing community, well, that's your problem. Nobody is talking about adding bunny hopping capabilities to ArmA 2, time has proven that those not interested in what this game has to offer, will leave . You have to get people to try it though.

How isn't it not accurately simulating infantry combat? I do believe it has taken ACE 2 to add some important aspects. I was making the point that this game doesn't strive to accurately simulate any one thing, it instead focuses on creating an overall atmosphere. It does it very well.

Yah, you see I just don't see that more PvP = a flourishing community. That is where we aren't going to agree.

I'll agree that ArmA2 is not really a "true" sim but I think that given what we have available to us today in terms of technology, it tries it's best. Let's face it, it is a very ambitious undertaking.

Edited February 15, 2010 by BangTail

[An Fiach 10]

That's wonderful Bangtail, you've managed to show everyone how boorish your behavior can be and just how lacking in reading comprehension you are. I never compared ArmA to RO, I said that a few RO style PvP missions would be good for this game, it is right where this game excels, objective based, teamwork focused combat with limited resources. Missions of that type rather than the dreadful DM mission that came with it showcase how great this game is for PvP.

I am more than a little bit amused at you claiming you are tired of people dictating how the game should be played but you are doing just that. Nobody said anything about making this game like any other game. Why are you so threatened by the prospect of having decent PvP missions come with the game along side the campaign and coop missions. Does adding missions fundamentally change ArmA 2?

I had very valid point and you tried to avoid it. People buy ArmA 2 for the future mods because of the preceding titles, else wise they would not expect any of it from this one. Assumption? How many come to this community from games like WoW? FPS games provide the majority of new players and your snarky comments about PvP players having no talent are weak. I said 'came' from as in the majority of Arma players got here from OFP but they came to OFP via those games you hate so much. The problem is, we aren't attracting enough new people to sustain the community that is beginning to bleed modding talent. You'll start to care when the coop missions start drying up. You didn't consider the campaign when you bought this game because you already knew, you obviously don't care about new people joining the community.

Ad hominem? It was an entirely accurate description of what you are doing. It wasn't a slight toward the coop crowd. I love coop, I played Ghost Recon (the original) with friends up until about 2 years ago, but at the end of the day, AI is easy to exploit and overcome and it is never as unpredictable and cunning as a human being. You must feel pretty inferior to PvP players to hate them all so much and to label everyone of them as the bunny hopping, fps doug loving crowd. Obviously you have never played Battleground Europe. With all of the complaints about players on Domination it seems like the coop crowd isn't any better than those you disparage, but then, that would be labeling all players who like coop as the same as those folks who obviously needed some father figure in their life to give them the strap.

[bangtail 0]

That's wonderful Bangtail, you've managed to show everyone how boorish your behavior can be and just how lacking in reading comprehension you are. I never compared ArmA to RO, I said that a few RO style PvP missions would be good for this game, it is right where this game excels, objective based, teamwork focused combat with limited resources. Missions of that type rather than the dreadful DM mission that came with it showcase how great this game is for PvP.

I am more than a little bit amused at you claiming you are tired of people dictating how the game should be played but you are doing just that. Nobody said anything about making this game like any other game. Why are you so threatened by the prospect of having decent PvP missions come with the game along side the campaign and coop missions. Does adding missions fundamentally change ArmA 2?

I had very valid point and you tried to avoid it. People buy ArmA 2 for the future mods because of the preceding titles, else wise they would not expect any of it from this one. Assumption? How many come to this community from games like WoW? FPS games provide the majority of new players and your snarky comments about PvP players having no talent are weak. I said 'came' from as in the majority of Arma players got here from OFP but they came to OFP via those games you hate so much. The problem is, we aren't attracting enough new people to sustain the community that is beginning to bleed modding talent. You'll start to care when the coop missions start drying up. You didn't consider the campaign when you bought this game because you already knew, you obviously don't care about new people joining the community.

Ad hominem? It was an entirely accurate description of what you are doing. It wasn't a slight toward the coop crowd. I love coop, I played Ghost Recon (the original) with friends up until about 2 years ago, but at the end of the day, AI is easy to exploit and overcome and it is never as unpredictable and cunning as a human being. You must feel pretty inferior to PvP players to hate them all so much and to label everyone of them as the bunny hopping, fps doug loving crowd. Obviously you have never played Battleground Europe. With all of the complaints about players on Domination it seems like the coop crowd isn't any better than those you disparage, but then, that would be labeling all players who like coop as the same as those folks who obviously needed some father figure in their life to give them the strap.

Similar to how you labeled all coop players "people who live in their parents basements"?

Co-oP missions drying up? That's hilarious and illustrates just how clueless you are about this franchise.

The game will never be altered to cater to you so this is all rather irrelevant anyway.

See ya :)

Edited February 15, 2010 by BangTail

[An Fiach 10]

Yah, you see I just don't see that more PvP = a flourishing community. That is where we aren't going to agree.

I'll agree that ArmA2 is not really a "true" sim but I think that given what we have available to us today in terms of technology, it tries it's best. Let's face it, it is a very ambitious undertaking.

It is very ambitious and despite the problems that were quite avoidable it is the best investment in entertainment that I have made in a long time. I look forward to OA and the added functionality it is supposed to bring us.

---------- Post added at 12:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:21 PM ----------

Similar to how you labeled all coop players "people who live in their parents bedrooms"?

The game will never be altered to cater to you so this is all rather irrelevant anyway.

See ya :)

I didn't, you just read it that way. It was already proven that in no way is anyone asking to alter the game outside of improving already existing features such as the server browser. BIS making good missions just means more options out of the box before people have to learn about mod folders and mission making.

[whisper 0]

PvP modes and attracting more PvP players != improvement IMHO.

Why? oO

[bangtail 0]

It is very ambitious and despite the problems that were quite avoidable it is the best investment in entertainment that I have made in a long time. I look forward to OA and the added functionality it is supposed to bring us.

---------- Post added at 12:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:21 PM ----------

I didn't, you just read it that way. It was already proven that in no way is anyone asking to alter the game outside of improving already existing features such as the server browser. BIS making good missions just means more options out of the box before people have to learn about mod folders and mission making.

At least have the courage of your convictions. You did say that, it's there in black and white (or red and white since I highlighted it).

Don't try and backtrack to save face.

Oh, and I never said PvPers were talentless, I implied that they were not necessarily synonymous with talent in the case of A2, given that there is so little user made PvP content and so much PvE content.

---------- Post added at 12:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:28 PM ----------

Why? oO

It just doesn't automatically equal an improvement IMHO.

Edited February 15, 2010 by BangTail

[whisper 0]

At least have the courage of your convictions. You did say that, it's there in black and white.

Don't try and backtrack to save face.

The main alteration asked, re-reading the thread, were :

* auto-download feature

* missions easier to aprehend for newcomers

Things that will for sure destroy the awesome realism aspect of ArmA2. Like, totally...

I'd add performance as the first and foremost thing to achieve in OA, this judging from the loads of comments I get when talking about A2 : "it runs bad".

Thing which is, again, never going to kill realism in the game

Oh, and I never said PvPers were talentless, I implied that they were not necessarily synonymous with talent in the case of A2 give that their is little user made PvP content and so much PvE content.

---------- Post added at 12:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:28 PM ----------

It just doesn't automatically equal an improvement IMHO.

Didn't answer why.

And because it's not an automatic improvement, they should be denied access to the game ? :O What a strange reasoning

Which can be taken against realism, btw.

Example of a realism feature that is to me everything BUT an improvement in A2 : HDR. Nice idea, badly implemented. Shining cows, and such, and I'm pretty convinced pushing all the 3D through the HDR because "it's the core of the engine" is a big source of perf issues.

EDIT : btw, in A2, most played mission is Warfare. It's not like people in A2 only like and do coop. There's a lot of work done on the PvP side of things

Edited February 15, 2010 by whisper

[bangtail 0]

The main alteration asked, re-reading the thread, were :

* auto-download feature

* missions easier to aprehend for newcomers

Things that will for sure destroy the awesome realism aspect of ArmA2. Like, totally...

I'd add performance as the first and foremost thing to achieve in OA, this judging from the loads of comments I get when talking about A2 : "it runs bad".

Thing which is, again, never going to kill realism in the game

Didn't answer why.

And because it's not an automatic improvement, they should be denied access to the game ? :O What a strange reasoning

Which can be taken against realism, btw.

Example of a realism feature that is to me everything BUT an improvement in A2 : HDR. Nice idea, badly implemented. Shining cows, and such, and I'm pretty convinced pushing all the 3D through the HDR because "it's the core of the engine" is a big source of perf issues.

They aren't denied access to the game. You seem confused.

Anfiach was specifically referring to PvP and I responded to his assertions, so again, you seem confused.

I have nothing against PvP, in fact, I have spent more time playing Global Agenda in the last 2 weeks than anything else.

I just don't see how PvP will be the "saviour" of Arma 2.

Just to be clear, I have nothing against an auto download feature (althought there is a mod for that). I can't really agree on the easier mission part, they are easy enough if you set the difficulty to novice.

Edited February 15, 2010 by BangTail

[whisper 0]

Not easier, more accessible (ie, remove the "I'm lost alone int the middle of nowhere" effect). 2 different things, there

Completely OT : any way to download GA from outside Steam? I've awefull bandwidth @home, way better @work and will not spend my time dling 6G if I can avoid, but the thing look interesting :)

[bangtail 0]

Not easier, more accessible (ie, remove the "I'm lost alone int the middle of nowhere" effect). 2 different things, there

Changing that would ruin the non linear nature of the game so I will never condone it.

ArmA 2 is not a place for people who want their hand held I'm afraid.

[An Fiach 10]

At least have the courage of your convictions. You did say that, it's there in black and white (or red and white since I highlighted it).

Don't try and backtrack to save face.

Oh, and I never said PvPers were talentless, I implied that they were not necessarily synonymous with talent in the case of A2, given that there is so little user made PvP content and so much PvE content.

---------- Post added at 12:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:28 PM ----------

It just doesn't automatically equal an improvement IMHO.

So you accuse me of backtracking and then do the same yourself? There is a good bit of PvP content, there just aren't enough PvP players to maintain PvP servers. You might remember that the largest server running was a PvP server.