vegeta897

Ah, so you're one of those "everything on wikipedia is bullshit" people who doesn't understand that it's a peer-reviewed and highly organized reputable website. Go ahead and edit that article with made up shit and see how long it lasts. Guess what, the cited sources are not on Wikipedia, so those can't be edited by anyone. And you just dismiss them again, this time calling them "horse shit" without any explanation at all. Great, good job. I already explained to you that I'm not talking about people who are already going to talk shit to anyone. Girls are instantly viewed differently when they are discovered in an online game, even by people who aren't going to talk shit to them. They are viewed differently because they are so uncommon in those games. It's not weird to see a Brazillian, or someone from any other country playing an online game. That is just as normal as anything else. It is not normal yet for girls, and your attitude seems to be completely against that. Everything you're saying to me is basically this: video games were targeted toward men first, and that should never change (just because!), and anyone who wants it to change is going to ruin gaming, and women should just deal with it. "Just don't play it" is a shitty thing to tell someone, when the reason they aren't playing is because of one aspect that is completely irrelevant to the gameplay makes them uncomfortable. It's like if the next Arma game had giant penises for weapons, and you told everyone "just don't play it then if you don't like it". What are we gaining from that? I don't know why you think a developer needs to "focus" on not making their female characters sex objects. This isn't about political correctness, and I don't know where you got that from. I'm not advocating adding empowering women to all games just for the sake of adding empowering women. I'm saying developer should stop with the cheap marketing tactics (TnA) because it brings down the reputation of the industry. People keep seeing games with ridiculous female characters and continue dismissing it as a hobby for horny teenage boys. With an attitude like yours, gaming would never improve in any way shape or form, because "this is how it is, and anyone that doesn't like it should deal with it." Unless you're only saying this because it's about what women want, because you seem to be pretty anti-feminist. When you're unsatisfied with the state of gaming, are you going to tell yourself to deal with it? You really seem to me like a person who is totally incapable of putting himself in somebody else's shoes. I'm not a woman, and I can understand what it must be like the be a girl gamer. You just dismiss it all as "non-issue" and tell people to deal with it.

I'd like to note that I quoted only part of your post on purpose. I don't necessarily disagree with you about how far a soldier can sprint with X kilograms of gear. I'm not really arguing that point. I specifically was talking about the example you posed, because it had an implication that I wanted to dispel. On the note of sprinting though, I think you're using it wrong. It is not to be used for travelling. It is used for dashing between cover or to safety, and small scale flanking. You should be jogging with your rifle lowered if you're just moving from point A to point B, if you want the most efficiency.

The problem I have with this argument is that it implies people who do like the new fatigue system enjoy walking 3 kilometers. Sorry, but we don't like it anymore than you do. What we do like is how the fatigue system forces us to think tactically. If a mission forces me to walk 3 kilometers, I find a new mission. That's a poorly designed mission, and I'm not going to waste my time with it. Or, perhaps I made mistakes that lead me to be stranded 3km out without transport. That's called good gameplay. If you remove or soften the consequences in Arma, then you degrade the experience. There are plenty of missions out there that don't make me walk that distance, and I can enjoy the dynamic gameplay the fatigue system brings to Arma, where my loadout choices make a real difference. What if the mission made you walk 10km? Should we increase sprint speed and remove fatigue all together so that you don't have to get bored trekking that distance on foot? There's a line to be drawn here. Missions could put you in any sort of inconvenient situation, they don't make for valid reasons in an argument. Arma lets you get yourself into shit situations by design. You could end up facing a tank with zero AT or explosives to do anything about it. Arma is never going to be the forgiving game that gives you a second chance there. All of your actions have consequences that you are forced to deal with.

What the hell are you talking about? Comparing game mechanics with restaurant bathrooms? Making a bathroom handicap-accessible does not split anybody. Playing Arma is not a necessary bodily function. You've taken this hand injury argument much too far. Decisions on game mechanic design should not be influenced by your inability to manipulate a mouse to a reasonable extent. What about people who only have one hand? Should we change the game to accommodate single-handed play too? "One more wouldn't split the community up much more" is a fallacy called slippery slope. Just because there are currently some difficulty options that split realism from arcade (third person and map/3d markers are about the only ones) doesn't mean adding more is okay. Arma has always had some amount of challenge in shooting weapons. This is just an increase in that challenge. It is not a change that is so radical it needs it's own option. Your hand injury (or other people's injuries) could prevent you from adapting to many different game mechanics, but that doesn't mean they should all be optional too. Designing a first person shooter that requires the ability to use a mouse without impedance is not the same as preventing your handicapped customers from being able to use the bathroom.

I think the OP is more concerned with actually being able to view the extra space on the map, so he can perhaps add markers and such.

I guess you ignored the main point of my post, so I'll say it again. You are not going to find the answers you're looking for. You acknowledge that BIS is trying their hardest and doing a great job all things considered, yet the main theme of all of your questions are "why aren't they doing better?". Especially questions like "Why is the CPU/GPU utilization so poorly optimized?" What kind of answer do you expect from that, honestly? Optimization is a concern for any game by any developer. If it's poor in Arma, then it's poor. If you think the answer is "because BIS doesn't care much about it" then you're wrong. You may as well be asking "why isn't there less pollution?" or "why are so many children starving?". Attempting to answer these questions does not get us anywhere. We gain nothing. The reasons aren't important, the result is. You can help BIS achieve better results by giving feedback, or simply continuing to buy BIS's products to support them. Pointing out the game's flaws has its place (and you should continue doing it in the right channels) but putting these issues in the form of questions and expecting meaningful answers will get you nowhere.

It would be great if the map was that big, and the mission could specify a crop region position/size, with the default being what we see currently. But I'd guess this would require some reworking of some very deep engine functions.

Not written to promote factual work? I guess you don't understand how Wikipedia works. There are 54 citations in the article. Almost every other sentence in the article has a source cited. Do you want to go refute each and one of those for me before you dismiss my entire post (by the way, the wiki article was one small bit of my entire post) I don't play games to look at sexualized females. Removing sexualized females from gaming is not going to ruin it for me. You're acting like better gender representation is going to ruin gaming. Can you not enjoy a game if the female characters in it are not sex objects? All you've done is cite a couple games that are in your eyes ruined because the developers tried to represent women better. I fail to see what that proves, because we're talking about trends here, not cherry picking. There are many games that ARE successful that have strong female protagonists and/or non sexualized women. And this isn't just about making games more appealing to women. It's about the gender roles that videogames are drilling into children's fertile minds. Go look at that Wikipedia article again for links to actual research on this. I didn't say it was the "biggest" stigma. Why would it have to be? I explained why it was different from other stigmas, yet you keep comparing it to things like race and nationality. You seem to have completely ignored the differences I pointed out, so I'm not going to waste more time with you. Such a progressive attitude.

The workshop is a really convenient way to both find, and automatically keep updated, missions for arma. The only thing I don't like about multiplayer workshop missions is that I can't sort them in order of when I subscribed to them, like you can in the singleplayer workshop missions. Steam lets you view this kind of information if you look at your subscribed content, but it would be ideal if I didn't have to take extra steps from the multiplayer lobby to do this. I would also really like to see an indication in the mission list of which missions I've played (or how many times), but that's not really a workshop-specific note. 5000 sounds like a lot of subscribers for an Arma mission, if you ask me. I would wager that most Arma players just play on public servers, not actually download missions and host their own games. For the people that do host their own missions, over 4000 is quite a lot. What's the average download count for missions on Armaholic? Edit: I just noticed that's a singleplayer mission. Probably even less people play singleplayer than they do private hosted games with friends. I'm just speculating here, but I still think nearly 5000 subscribers on a singleplayer mission is quite a lot.

With the newly implemented door sounds on the dev branch, animals opening doors brings a whole new level of terror and paranoia to the game.

Have you submitted this to the feedback tracker? That's the best way to get it fixed.

At least I haven't seen this happen yet in Arma 3. Arma 3's vehicles physics have their problems (any physics engine does) but I still consider them overall to be more realistic than Arma 2's. Tanks and other heavy vehicles have this weight to them that I really feel when driving them, which I never really had in Arma 2. I just felt slow in Arma 2.

This pretty much nails it. BIS kind of has to advertise their game in a way that hides all these flaws you point out, or else they would never sell anything, and we'd end up with an even worse game or no game at all. The answers you're really looking for, are not to be found. Either have faith in BIS that they'll continue making games they have passion for making, do your part in the feedback tracker, or move on to another game if you can't enjoy it for what it is. Arma, to me, has always been about enjoying what there is, and what mods can bring to it. Any improvements BIS makes (which they are, all the time) are bonuses to me.

Pot and kettle... This isn't about people who are already internet trolls. It's about the concept of a female gamer. A girl simply using voicechat in an online game instantly conveys her gender. The same cannot be said about a homosexual, a jew, or a third world country resident. Further, none of those carry the same stigma when it comes to gaming. Have you ever heard "jews suck at videogames?" Now how about "girls suck at videogames?" The latter is what girls often hear when playing online. They're not just attacked for their gender alone, they're attacked for playing the game to begin with. To further break your analogy, portraying gays and jews in a demeaning fashion is not as pervasive a trend in mainstream games as it is for women. Where the hell did I claim that dealing with assholes on the internet was a female-only thing? If you really think there is nothing wrong with the situation of being a female gamer today, I could direct you toward large groups of internet communities that would love to tell you otherwise. It's also plain for me to see as a male who has seen the way girl gamers are treated first hand (I have a gamer sister), but I guess you just want to keep telling yourself there's nothing wrong. I'm also amused that you think gender representation in videogames has no effect. Educate yourself. You're stating what I already stated is the problem. Remember what I said about a catch 22? You're describing it. Industry makes games for males, females feel excluded, and they remain a minority. But there is zero good reason for that. Manipulating a game pad or moving a mouse and hitting keyboard keys is not inherently biased toward men or women, and neither are the gameplay mechanics that follow. Majority of male gamers continue to feel that gaming is a man's thing, and ostracize any females they encounter. Yeah, that doesn't sound like a problem at all, and nothing needs to change.

It's a huge step forward because currently those ambient sounds are 1 dimensional, and now they would be 2. It's not "creating" a 2D world. There's no reason for those sounds to originate from an actual position in the map, only a degree relative to the player, and sticking to that degree as the player turns.

I didn't say there was a problem with gender representation in books. If there was absolutely nothing wrong with the current situation, female gamers would not be facing the enormous amount of stigmatization they face when playing online amongst male gamers. Much of online gaming is still seen as a "guy's thing" by many, when it really has no reason to be, other than the fact that most protagonists are badass males, and any female characters are there for eye candy. It must be easy for you, as a male gamer, to say "there is absolutely nothing wrong". That is insanely naive and closedminded. If you have never seen evidence of female gamers being harassed for their gender in an online game, you are in for a rude awakening. Show me. I never said I needed female characters, soldier or civilian, in Arma for me to enjoy it. In this thread I talked about the reasons why BIS probably didn't include them, and then I talked about why including female soldiers would not be unrealistic. Nowhere did I say females were needed in this game, or that I cared whether they were included or not. I'd rather BIS make their own priorities. Good lord, man. I'm talking about social responsibilities. If videogames are to progress as a form of entertainment that isn't highly biased toward the male demographic (for no good reason, that is the key point) then we need to stop seeing the same old stereotypes in them. The only reason they persist is because developers look at what has been successful in the past and copy it. They are generally afraid to make a game that has a strong female main character. It's risky. This is why things need to change. Why should that be risky? It's not risky in literature. It's not risky in television, or movies. Starting to see the problem? Tetris doesn't have males either, so asking me this question just tells me you're missing the point entirely. There's a major flaw in your comparison between videogames and art. True art, the kind with creative expression, is not created for the purpose of selling copies. The trend in videogames for males to be badasses and females to be eyecandy is not about "artistic expression". Give me a break. It's about going after the teen male demographic. They're trying to make their product attractive to their audience. Last time I checked, that is not what artists do. Artists express creativity. There is nothing creative about following marketing trends. Nobody's asking for existing works to be altered or censored. And I certainly support your right to make a rape and torture game. But we're talking about games that actually have widespread mainstream appeal. Your rape game will never have that, so it's highly irrelevant. The mainstream industry needs to start adopting more progressive trends. There is nothing inherently male-oriented in the gameplay of an RPG, for example, yet almost all RPGs feature buff men and scantily clad perfect figure women. Is it necessary that the females in those games look like sex objects? Will the game suck if they are not? Will the gameplay (you know, the part that matters) change at all? You might argue "if males make up their biggest demographic, why wouldn't they try to appeal to them?" And here we have a catch 22. Developers put objectified women in their games and create a male-dominated online environment, which ostracizes female gamers from playing it. If developers stopped relying on sex appeal to tap into the male demographic, and actually sold their games on more non-gender-biased merits (like, gee, I don't know, gameplay), we'd start to see things evening out, and being a female online would no longer be viewed as a rare thing, greeted with hostility or sexualization. ("girls can't play games", or "tits or gtfo")

I'm not sure why you're talking about me as if I identified myself as part of the group of people I referred to. I personally do not care whether a game has playable female characters or not. But I have read a fair amount from people that do. To say gender representation doesn't exist in video games because they're virtual is totally naive. By that logic, gender representation doesn't exist in almost any media, especially literature. Even movies or television with live actors aren't really "real" humans from the viewer's perspective, since they're just pixels and sound waves. But the viewer sees them as human, just as they can see video game characters, cartoon characters, or words in a book as humans. I don't know where you get this criteria. It's gender representation. A character in a video game can represent a female or male human. That's what we're talking about. And since video games are a very prevalent part of culture now, they have a real impact on society's perceptions, especially children. If you deny this, you're just being ignorant. I'm not even going to touch the nonsense you're spouting about agendas. Give me a break, dude. More like, female players in online games are given shit daily and are sick of dealing with misogyny. Do you think it's a coincidence that the people they're getting shit from are the same people playing these games that portray women as secondary, sexualized damsels in distress?

I'm sorry, this is an incredibly regressive attittude. This "recent trend" you speak of is not about the ability for people to enjoy games. No woman ever said they couldn't enjoy a game if they were unable to play as a female, or that playing as one would magically make the game better. It's about gender representation. It's a real issue that a lot of people care about. Video games are now a gigantic part of culture (not just a nerd hobby anymore) and in general are pretty far behind in terms of the roles females have in them. Either lack of them as primary characters, or having them completely sexualized simply to appeal to the male demographic. Nobody is asking for females in games where they shouldn't be, but if female soldiers in Arma would break your immersion, perhaps you are the one with the problem. They aren't aliens. Is it that unrealistic for you to see a woman in combat fatigues shooting a rifle? The fact that you think the progressive movement for better representation of females in videogames "needs to stop" instantly discredits everything you say.

He's talking about map icons, not the device GUI. If you are in Recruit, and you spot a laser dot (indicated by radio chatter), perhaps it shows up on the map, like units do?

What's wrong with the quality of BIS's weapons and vehicles? They are probably the most attractive looking graphical assets in the game.

You're focusing on how many millimeters the barrel moves instead of how easy it is to hit targets at 1km compared to real life (probably 5x easier). When it comes to realism, I'd rather have that be realistic, with an unrealistic barrel sway amount that contributes toward it. Even when it's harder to steady your weapon in the game than real life, it's still way easier to hit targets at insane ranges. If you want it even easier to steady your weapon, it gets even more silly. Arma is never going to recreate the real life conditions and skills required to shoot a weapon, so focusing on a single aspect of that (the weapon's sway) and calling it unrealistic isn't going to get us anywhere. What should matter most is the end result.

You probably wouldn't see a lot of people complaining about something so specific, but you do see people complaining about the game world feeling lifeless. Just the other day I was wishing for things like window shutters flapping in the wind. Small details like this add up and can vastly improve immersion, which is something I highly value in Arma.

The door sounds are pretty WIP (seems like the same sound for any door type, and the closing sound is pretty out of sync), but I'm looking forward to improvements.

Is this what we're using for a benchmark of Arma players? No offense to your friend, but rage quitting because it's harder to shoot than it used to be, instead of trying to adapt, is not something I expect a reasonable player to do. There has been a lot of valuable and legitimate discussion in the general forum from people who don't like the new sway. Your friend rage quitting isn't a valuable or legitimate justification for anything. Edit: What Coulum said. The fatigue and sway changes did bother a lot of people, but it also enhanced the game for many others. You say the feature wasn't ready, but I'd say the people who hated it weren't ready.

It doesn't seem like there's any more progress to be made in this thread aside from BIS giving some response. Though they've already said why female models aren't in the game right now, have they spoken on future plans/possibilities?