ghost101

the tank AI grinding to a halt due to ducks in the road is a well known issue. AIGameDev.com mentioned it in their "Understanding AI with Epic Failures" feature not too long ago :D They actually use an ArmA2 tank surrounded by ducks as the articles title pic. Yeah, I'd say it needs fixing.

^^ that times 10 as my name suggests, i used to be a fan of GR. and we all know what happened to that. now i'm a fan of ArmA and I hope i will be for a long time. screw "accessibility". the focus should be on perfecting ArmA, not making it more palatable for the dim masses who only appreciate one thing: X-Factor Hollywood stupidity. everyone here knows how great ArmA is. we appreciate this unique gem and want more of the same...extended, perfected, more more more! not dilution and retardation in the name of "accessibility". we will not stand for such nonsense!

Ideally, I would love a fully developed simulation in all aspects of ArmA. But i don't think that's a realistic wish. I guess the development costs of producing vehicle simlevels anything close to something like MSFlightSim would be out of the question for BIS. However, I would definitely like to see at least some effort in giving more of an impression of realism. at the moment, driving and flying seem far too cartoony when compared to infantry play - particularly flight. When I first played ArmA, I didn't appreciate being able to fly an F16 like a pro within the first 15 mins. there should definitely be a higher degree of skill and learning involved. I'm sure this could be done by selecting a few key flight attributes to simulate more fully; not a full sim, just some key aspects of flight which would make the whole experience more realistic and more challenging without attempting a full blown-sim (which I reckon would be impossible anyway, given BIS's limited budget)

I prefer CounterStrike Source form my arcade FPS action, thanks. For storey driven character based fun, I play games like Half Life 2, Bioshock and Fallout. I prefer Left 4 Dead for my Zombie drama action. And when I fancy "playing" a military simulator, I go with ArmA. It's the only one out there and I'd like it kept that way and not have BIS trying to make it something it can never be.

I absolutely do not want any ridiculous "characters" - thank you very much. And the only "atmosphere" I want is that which may or may not come from BIS's attention to _realistic_ details. Harvest Red and the BAF campaign had more than enough "character" and the idea of Hollywood atmosphere and character development does NOT need to be taken any further in ArmA. Additionally, the only "story" I want in ArmA3 is the scenario briefing which should simply explain each operation and the mission at hand with a little background history to the situation. All executed in a professional military style. I don't want cut-scenes of some "character" called Ltn. Chuck Mantell, having flashbacks from his experiences 30 years earlier while serving in Chernarus and vowing to kill all insurgents on the island of Lemnos for what happened to his grandma two years ago and for his daughter being accidentally killed by a still active 19th century Bear trap while he and his family were on a trekking day-trip in the outbacks of Alaska. I really do not understand some people on this forum. If you want Battlefield...GO PLAY IT! I for one want a hardcore consumer Milsim. That's all I want from BBIS and ArmA 3. No more and no less.

I see you, over there, playing CoD with your trendy overpriced Razor G4m3r-EXtreme-X MKIV mouse... You can't hide it, we know what you are!

- from Wikipedia's article Video-game "Accesability"Just about closes the case on the entire debate really :D ---------- Post added at 03:58 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:46 AM ---------- don't remember saying I had anything against perfecting ArmA's interface, documentation and general workflow. I'm all for usability improvements. I specifically said that I do not like Accessibility and "widening participation" to enable retards to access ArmA. That's not because I have anything against retards, it's simply because FPS games which cater for retards already dominate the FPS market. The only FPS I have left to enjoy is ArmA - so I do not want it retarded in anyway. I don't think that's selfish, I think that's more than fair. Retards have 99.9% of all FPS games out there, I have just 1 - ArmA - and I'd like to continue enjoying it.

In your example, Scenario 2 does not diminish the features or "complexity" of the game when compared to Scenario 1. It simply improves its interface and so it is an example of a Usability enhancement. Additionally, you seem to misunderstand the meaning of "complexity" - complexity doesn't necessarily mean difficulty. Sure, complexity is "difficult" for certain types of people, but complexity with a good interface is a joy for many ArmA fans (I include you in that, despite your insistance of using wrong terminology) Accessibility is subtractive, as in this quote: That 's a description which indicates an intention to _remove_ critical gameplay complexity and I guess that 's why BIS use the term "Accessibility" when talking about ArmA 3. They use the word with clear understanding of its meaning. Sorry, but "accessibly" is a very scary word. Civilization, Supreme Commander, Deus Ex, etc all used to be "PC exclusives". Very complex and rich games with wonderful (but complex) interfaces and cutting edge AI - reduced to such an extent that they're now playable on consoles and enjoyed by CoD fans. Sure, more Accessible, but many original fans would not touch them with a very long pole. I don't see why it 's so difficult to use proper words to express what direction you want ArmA to head. I've read that BIS listen very carefully to their fans words on forums. You seem to want better usability, yet send mixed signals by stubbornly using the word Accessibility. :confused: I understand what you are saying though, many people use the word accessibility when they actually mean that they want usability. An honest mistake but people should point out the mistake because, as you know, the two things are very different.

InstaGoat is absolutely correct in his distinction between Accessibility and Usability. They are two very different philosophies with two very different aims and are not actually simple "buzzwords" to be dismissed - they're well known concepts - particularly in the game industry. Accessibility is basically practised on every mainstream game out there today, and is the reason your 12 year old sister has no problem completing most games in your console collection. Accessibility is basically about simplifying your product/game by sacrificing anything which may take longer than a fraction of a second to "learn" or could be considered "difficult". Anything that may deter the average school child of roughly 12 years old. It's about "widening audiences" and increasing profits for game-cos. Of course, there are varying degrees to which Accessibility can be applied - but that is its ideal aim. Usability, on the other hand, is about perfecting complex interfaces, documentation and enhancing your overall designs. Aircraft cockpit designers in the realworld, for example, are dealing with NECESSARILY complex interfaces. There are readings which simply must be there to maintain the integrity of air-flight and so they focus on Usability and NOT Accessibility (prepubescent 12 year old girls were just never meant to fly commercial passenger jets - apparently) There's a world of difference between the two and I know which I'd like BIS to be focusing on. I'm not saying that it is bad for a company to want to maximize their profits, but it is rather retarded for fans of a uniquely "complex" game to be almost ENCOURAGING and siding with the idea of making ArmA "more accessible".

I have no problem with people talking about improving ArmA, but talk of making it more "accessible" to nit-wits like you really grates on my nerves. sorry. there's nothing wrong with ArmA, the real problem is with you. go buy a Wii or something.

haven't read all the thread or OP original post. but i gather you are talking about the box design and changing it to OP type design. No, don't like it. too hoolywood. I like the one Tonci posted for the German cover. that tone is perfect for ArmA

the point of referencing the video was not to show you something "special" - it was to prove the basic point that many people are able to work with expressive squad and high command to execute a clear, planned and definite approach to an objective. that is the value of expressive command (for me at least). you may not like the way the player in the vid executed his objective but he clearly has more skill than you. "wah wah, the interface is so complex and clunky...please remove everything so that ArmA no longer makes me feel inadequate each time I load it up" I think _you're_ "clunky" - clunky in the brain. :o

you have troubles using High Command & UAV's ? Too bad for you. ArmA is a sandbox, it's unlike any of the games you keep comparing it to. It's very easy to develop perfection in a deterministic environment (ie: a regular full/partial rails shooter). It's not so easy to devise a perfect control system for non-deterministic sandbox (ArmA). BIS are also a very small company and ArmA is a niche game made for niche customers (customers with mental capacities able to dealing with ArmA's quirks). I understand that and that is why I can accept ArmA's "quirky" features and I managed to play the game fluidly and without too much effort...despite the clear need for many improvements. Improving is what sequels should be about - not dumbing down. you do realize that many of us here have the capability to play this game the way it should be played, right? we're not all bewildered and dumbstruck by ArmA's interface: sLhJCJILTto you do realize this?? :j: ---------- Post added at 11:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:19 AM ---------- don't take it personally, it's just a convenient generalization. of course there are exceptions. but you have to agree, _most_ CoD players represent the mainstream gameplayer. and mainstream players are not too bright. hence the "need" to make ArmA "more accessible" :)

You think wrong. I expect BIS to deliver a quality and challenging campaign and the campaign should be a showcase of ArmA features. With the main campaign, they are saying: "this is the potential of our game, this is what it can do and this is what ArmA it is all about". With separate tutorial missions and documentation they can explain HOW to play the game. I don't pay good money for tutorial missions and a dumb campaign designed for CoD retards. I've already put in the effort to learn how to play. I want a proper campaign.

Quite. Not sure where Battlefield 3's sound-scape fits into that equation, though. Seen as BF3 didn't invent variable echoes or sound reverb, wasn't the first to use it and its based samples (which sound so "real" to your Hollywood trained ears) consist mainly of samples synthesized with the mating calls of wild animals. Clearly a Battlefield fanboy.

no one said ArmA sound doesn't need to be improved. what people are saying is that it doesn't need to sound like Battlefield - which is what OP and a few others are suggesting. read the thread before making lazy fanboy accusations. Welcome To Hell: that Russian firefight video doesn't sound like BF. nothing like it.

good point and it couldn't be anything other than awesome to anyone wanting a sandbox milsim. of course, if you don't want that then it won't be very awesome. too bad for those people i guess.

Welcome To Hell: the video I posted of the guys on the gun-range are outside, in the middle of a desert with few objects around to create echoes. that's why you hear very little. the video you posted failed, along with the rest of your post, so i was unable to watch the point you are trying to make. anyway, this is not just about "echo" - it's about sound design in general. sound in BF is highly exagerated and also unrealistic. you should be able to hear that with your own ears, but the fact that DICE synthesize tank engines with lions roaring (for example) proves that point beyond doubt.

yeah, reality can be a boring pill for some to swallow after all those Hollywood movies and episodes of Band of Brothers. bSfjT5-P65g

i don't need to try hard. what i'm saying is right for ArmA. I have no idea of your audio setup, but are you using earphones, or loud speaker? Binaural audio localization does not work on LS. For ArmA, you also need a soundcard that is capable of Virtual 3D and it usually needs to be activated (soundcard settings). As far as I know, ArmA is not doing the binaural processing itself. Anyway, sounds are not perfect in ArmA, levels on many sounds need adjusting to give them more depth, etc. The various sound-mods already available proves there is room for improvement and BIS have already said they are looking into this for ArmA 3. But to say that you want BIS to emulate Battlefield's audio design is ridiculous. You want tank audio synthesized with lion roars and unnatural levels of echo which will interfere with localization? in ArmA? comon!

if I want "immersion", I watch a movie or play Shadow of the Colosuss on my PlayStation. in ArmA, I want sounds which communicate tactical information and are authentic. I want accurate sounds so that I can easily distinguish an M4 from an AK, and sounds that communicate direction ...so that I do not shoot friendly troops.

^^^ just over-the-top echo. it's the audio equivalent of visual graphic designers who use too much bloom to give "realism" to visuals.

i couldn't hear any sound clearly over the constant nonestop "omg pwn4d!!2!" talk of the commentators in that vid. i think the only thing you're hearing clearly is Sony's marketing hype.

3:40 > "we use a lot of animals in the sound. for falling towers...we use a lion [roar] as a tank..." yeah, really realistic. BF is using "clever" sound design, not realistic sound design. they're using your pre-conceived ideas as to what most people _think_ certain things should sound like, not what they _actually_ sound like. Hollywood movies use the same techniques, synthesizing lots of different (unrelated) sounds together to give them more dramatic impact. And they know that the only experience players have of hearing towers fall and tanks rolling comes from Hollywood movies. That is "reality" to most people and so BF plays on those expectations. whatever Stefan Strandberg says - BF soundscape is pure exaggerated Hollywood stylization. Even with apparently limited effort put in by BIS on sound, their use of 3D placement, real recorded sounds and occlusion, etc. is more realistic than BF and probably all you need. so, everyone, please STFU about BF. k?

ah, so ArmA sounds are wrapped in a X3DAudio class which provides spatial location to soundcard. now i see.