Quality vs Quantity

[Opticalsnare 12]

Just wondering what you guys perfer in games & mods these days this is for research purposes for myself.

I perfer Quality over Quantity in terms of games & mods i like alot of content but it needs to be done good. If you take ArmA2 for example its def based more on the Quantity side than Quality. This is everywhere in terms of size of map, how many weapons and vehicles it has and the total amount of units. Sure Quantity is great but the problem is theres just not enough Quality going into every single peice of weapon or vehicle to make it stand out over other quality stuff.

Erm how can i put it better? Would you perfer to have less content but its more highly detailed like fewer vehicles but they are better detailed like their cockpits and weapon systems are all fully interactive etc.

Edited May 27, 2010 by Opticalsnare

[Takko 10]

I want quality over quantity but do not agree you saying, that everything in ArmA II is

rather quantity.

[nodunit 397]

it's a mix..on the one hand with quantity you get more toys to play with but many of them feel the same, the difference being their appearence.

Quality you have far less toys, each one unique but alot of people would get bored with a small selection fast.

[sic-disaster 311]

I'd say quality first.

You can crank out a lot of stuff very fast but if the quality isnt good, it's unlikely to be used very much so in the end it's even counterproductive i think.

It's better to have less stuff but everything that's there is very detailed making something stand out, making you want to use it more.

[*LK1* 10]

question bad posed but i've voted for the first option since i've understood what you mean.

[Flash Thunder 10]

Im with Quality over Quantity anyday.

From BIS I want Quality over Quantity same for the modding community.

Arma 2 would be still be extremely addicting and enjoyable if it didnt have 50 civilian vehicles, a few tanks/helos etc.

As what I expect from quality side for things like weapons: Seperate reload animations, priming times, weapon setups for launchers, backblast, smoke/debris tracers, muzzle flashes, weapon animations/carrying positions etc/being able to use the bi-pods/zeroing in etc.

From vehicles, more animations, Improved cockpits in Jets (texture wise like after the patches) Fire system controls, countermeasures, proper armor values, good looking destruction model.

[bravo 6 0]

Quality / Detail

I prefer to have things optimized in order to run it as best as possible.

[icewindo 29]

I don't think I can draw a clear line for that, if I was 100% for quality I would have released very very few addons. Then again I like to play with quality mods.

I understand the "obsession" for fine tuning and detailed details, but I simply don't have time (and probably skill, which would need more time to improve) for a final version as I have alot of stuff I would like to mod with. For my (own) not-that-complete addons I linked to the MLODs though if somebody were to feel to improve them.

And, afterall, it's a hobby. I don't see any paychecks arriving for that.

As a spectator of many dying mods in several games who had "Don't think Beta" slammed to their mod, i don't want to share their same fate :p .

Edited May 27, 2010 by Icewindo

[esco7800 10]

Quantity modders can fix it

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Although quality shouldn't be neglected, for the default game I'd actually have to say quantity. Replacement addons and configs will show up eventually, but only if the classes are there in the first place.

From a mission designers point of view, if the quantity was less, I would have a lot less options to work with. How many missions would you see with a super detailed Utes? I am also constantly fighting the lack of quantity during mission making. Where is the missing russian engineer class? There is a Sapper for the insurgents, but that kinds of ruin the feel. We have officers, "unique looking squad leaders", and even a general for the russians, then add commander, boss, and warlord for the insurgents. Where are "similar" variation classes for west? Why don't we have a russian UAZ mounted MG? The AGS is waaay too deadly for my typical light infantry singleplayer missions, and the Vodnik is a bloody nightmare for dismounted AI troops. There is no fighting, only mass murder. :p

I realize that I'm utterly alone in this, but quantity gives options that quality doesn't.

[slay0rwr4th 10]

Im with Quality over Quantity anyday.

From BIS I want Quality over Quantity same for the modding community.

Arma 2 would be still be extremely addicting and enjoyable if it didnt have 50 civilian vehicles, a few tanks/helos etc.

As what I expect from quality side for things like weapons: Seperate reload animations, priming times, weapon setups for launchers, backblast, smoke/debris tracers, muzzle flashes, weapon animations/carrying positions etc/being able to use the bi-pods/zeroing in etc.

From vehicles, more animations, Improved cockpits in Jets (texture wise like after the patches) Fire system controls, countermeasures, proper armor values, good looking destruction model.

I liked all the above, especially on the weapons side of it, (maybe adjustable iron sights too, seems to be modded more and more....)

For vehicles softbody physics would be awesome (think rigs of rods) yeah smash through that tree, no problems, until it lands on your car rendering it useless (without a giant, unrealistic explosion) or you hit a fence a little too fast and smash up the front right of the car, and have to drive it in reverse (hard lock left to go straight) back to base or ditch it.

Kind of reminds me of RPG's though, there'll be a stupid amount of weapons ingame, it'll be known that 5 of them are good throughout - the way they seperate them is to have specific usefulness, though most of the time you can survive just fine without them. Morrowind had tonnes of crap in it, I think I used a glass claymore and armor and didn't need much else, didn't particularly want to either.

If you're going to have quantity it can't just be for the sake of it, there has to be reason, you have to be forced to use all of it (most of it)at some point or for some reason, there have to be definite advantages and disadvantages to said equipment, regardless of what it is.

Like Nodunit said more toys end up being the same, with different appearance - Pointless.

[AnimalMother92 10]

I realize that I'm utterly alone in this, but quantity gives options that quality doesn't.

You're not alone, I get exactly where you're coming from on this one. It's a careful balance and I think BIS is handling it pretty well but of course I always wish for moar :rolleyes:

[Flash Thunder 10]

Yeah I think BIS did overkill with the weapons and vehicles.

more detail would've been my want.

But I do see where CarlGustaffa is coming from.

but as of now, I have hardly touched any of the ak's, never use the mp5 and XM8.

Im fine with an M16A4 m203 acog.

Without the graphic whore in me though I think BIS did a fine job, details wow but they dont add much after that.

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

Definitely quality for me.

To me a mod should look and feel like it was designed to be in the game from the beggining and this is something I feel all mods should try and strive for.

[andersson 285]

Quality. Then I talk about proper lods, optimisation, good scripts and use of the engine features. Then if more features are added as bling its all good but I care more about technical quality and that it fits the rest in terms of visual quality.

[EricM 0]

Quantity has a quality all of its own...

[[aps]gnat 28]

You're not alone, I get exactly where you're coming from on this one. It's a careful balance and I think BIS is handling it pretty well but of course I always wish for moar :rolleyes:

Yes, agree, a balance. It the game doesn't have a certain vehicle or weapon you may not be able to make a mission of a certain type or historic accuracy.

So things like the An72 ...... there was no OPFOR fixed wing transport, so its best to have (almost) anything. The An72 is not up to ArmA2 standards in some ways, but at least the hole is partly filled.

And the way I see it, people only seem to admire (or dislike) a new addons appearance/detail the first couple of times they see it, after thet they're only ever concerned with blowing it up! :p

Also, what is "Quality"?

I suspect most people think "appearance" first.

- Appearance

- Accuracy of function (speed, hit damage etc)

- Special features (ejector seat, ACE compatible, damaged model)

- Bugs (or lack there of)

[VanhA-ICON 11]

I chose Quality only because I usually avoid using any addons apart from islands in my missions.

While it is good to have plenty to choose from it also brings up issues for me if I choose to use some small skin upgrade and the mission gets overlooked because of that.

Still, I respect the work of all addon makers regardless.

[james mckenzie-smith 1]

Quality and quantity are not mutually exclusive concepts. I'll take as much good quality kit as I can get.

That said, the kit and force mix has been better in vanilla ArmA2 than in previous versions, for the most part. I currently have no mods to speak of, beyond the ability to plonk the LHD on the Chernarus map. That's not to say that I will not use any in the long run - Liberation '44 has got my eye, to be sure - but the impending release of AO should actually satisfy most of my modern unit requirements and new battleground needs for the forseeable future. The quality of the new BIS addon units and terrains should be pretty high, and there's a lot of it.

[Zipper5 74]

Quality over quantity for sure. Take VBS 2 for example - it has almost everything you might want from a simulator, but that doesn't mean they're of the same quality standards as Arma 2.

[Richey79 10]

I think I'd have to say 'quantity', from modders anyway.

I'm remembering all the beta-versions of mods that have been released and have been loads of fun to play around with. If those modders had been obsessed with waiting to be able to make a 'quality' release, we probably wouldn't be seeing those models for another two years.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Quality does make more sense. In the end people dont like to play/mess around with alpha-beta versions forever. For feedback and bugfixing its ok but it shouldnt be the aim of addon makers/mod teams to throw their work out and leave it unfinished + bugged.

[MirindoR 10]

Quantity modders can fix it

it's supposed to be the other way round.

modders are supposed to add goodies or slightly modify secondary aspects of the game. in arma 2 it's been up to the community to process arma 2 making it the game it should have been in the first place.

ace has partly fixed or added parts of arma 2 that should undeniably have been there but simply weren't - i don't know about you guys, but i simply couldn't play this game at all without mods, i'd just ditch it.

for me this means the vanilla release simply hasn't been worked on enough to make a GOOD game.

face it: remove all your soundmods, effect mods, conversion mods, weapon packs; remove scripts like the ac-130, the community made missions and maps; and what you're left with is something you'll get bored with soon enough. If i buy arrowhead it's just because i know that the modders will surely make it something fantastic.

[james mckenzie-smith 1]

it's been up to the community to process arma 2 making it the game it should have been in the first place.

I rather doubt that you could reach a consensus among ArmA2 players as to what ArmA2 should have been in the first place. Compare your addon folder to just about anyone else's, for a start; you will find that what you consider completely essential is not necessarily considered so universally.

ace has partly fixed or added parts of arma 2 that should undeniably have been there but simply weren't - i don't know about you guys, but i simply couldn't play this game at all without mods, i'd just ditch it.

I almost never use any mods for ArmA2, but I somehow manage to enjoy the game without them. Maybe it's just because the game is flexible enough that I can make an enormous variety of missions for my own use, using an editor that was made by BIS...not by modders.

for me this means the vanilla release simply hasn't been worked on enough to make a GOOD game.

The vanilla release is a remarkably good product, even if it was rather buggy at release. The fundamental features that make it a good game are there by default, with no help of any mod. Where would the sainted ACE mod be without ArmA2's editor and capability of having huge numbers of units on huge maps, among many other features? Why do you suppose that ACE was made for ArmA2, and not for MW2, or some other product?

face it: remove all your soundmods, effect mods, conversion mods, weapon packs; remove scripts like the ac-130, the community made missions and maps; and what you're left with is something you'll get bored with soon enough.

If I were utterly bereft of imagination and ability to use the mission editor, then yes, I suppose that you might be correct. As things stand, I can make missions that satisfy my own requirements far better than anyone else in the community, and at that using only the stock units, so I am still happy with ArmA2. I am most certainly not bored with it.

Of course, I am looking forward to Operation Arrowhead, because new units, new terrain, and new features are welcome, but I could live without them for quite a long while yet.

If i buy arrowhead it's just because i know that the modders will surely make it something fantastic.

Doubtless you are correct that the modders will do some very good work. There are a handful of mods that I am looking forward to myself. That said, BIS does the dirty work and makes the great games. Modders just give the games a little bit of extra flavour.

[nettrucker 142]

Couldn't agree more with you. I don't have any issues playing ArmA II vanilla. I start using mods when all flaws are ironed out, but in general I'm sticking to vanilla for the time being.

BOT ... I prefer also quality over quantity, but I love having also a large choice at disposal.

kind regards

Edited May 28, 2010 by nettrucker
added comment