ghost101

yeah, i know but i was wondering how even the sound card knows how to correctly place sound in 3D space. Stereo sound gives no information of a sound's elevation, whether it's coming from front, back, etc. just left and right channel intensity. seems weird. :confused: i know how regular binaural processing works and you usually have to have information of the location of a sound before you do the magical binaural processing.

I switch on my card's CMSS-3D (Creative) and I'm able to pinpoint sounds quite accurately. I'm not sure how it does this if ArmA is only producing stereo sound but the binaural effect is pretty convincing.

eh? creating a @mod directory in the ArmA root is difficult?

Exactly what CameronMcDonald just said. I'm sure some people have silly ideas to "mainstream" it. but any attempts will only damage ArmA and most current fans will not be happy. ArmA's core is a niche MilSim. It's unique "hook" is that it is a mature gamer's game. Doesn't mean you have to be 75 years old to play it, but you are required to have patience and some tactical knowledge. so it's never going to be a blockbuster. it's like one of those movies which everyone KNOWS is great, but few can appreciate fully and so it flunks at the box-office, or only gets limited release at independent cinemas. you will never please most reviewers today unless your game is an instant gratification ego-shooter, a selfish experience, playing as one soldier in a battle that will come to life around you. wait a minute, that sounds familiar.....oh nooooooooees! Don't do it Ivan! :eek:

unlike Sony, who have a $100 million dollar budget for marketing alone, and an army of developers, BIS have to prioritize. I'm sure they haven't got time and money (or even a wish) to compete with BF's overexaggerated cinematic characterization of sound. it might sound "exciting" and impressive but it's not realistic.

"omgz...make ArmA moar likes Battlefield !!!111!2" I doubt real-life sounds like Battlefield, tbh. It probably sounds more like ACE sound mods.

The negative reaction to the term "accessbility" is probably comming from people who actually understand what the word means and the effect its religious application has had on the vast majority of dull, challengeless games created today. Judging by your last two posts, I think a better term for you to be using would be "usability". Usability includes the issue of enhancing "ease of use" and "learnability" of software by providing better documentation and redesigning interfaces and, i agree, is definitely something BIS should aim for with ArmA. Accessability, on the other hand, literally results in "dumbing down" software to enable the lowest common denominator (in terms of mental capabilities and motivation) to gain access to and enjoy software and other stuff in society at the expense of depth and complexity. Wikipedia has two very good articles on the subjects: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accessibility http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usability BIS currently continue to use the term "accessibility" when refering to ArmA 3, and when you couple that with Ivan's announcement that BIS plan to make ArmA more accessible by cutting back on the level of squad control in ArmA 3's main campaign, you can kind of see why some of us are a bit concerned. There was a time (not too long ago) when games were made to be usable, but offer a great challenge. Nowadays, you get a "con" mark against the review of your game if the reviewer's 4 year old child found it a bit "difficult to play". Definitely agree with you here. Make the trainning feel realistic and give it context, as though you are in a real bootcamp. Structure it as a military training academy or something, which offers training modules on the various skills and basic tactic ideas you will need to play the game effectively and "properly". Would be nice to create it as a fully developed ArmA campaign (intro scenes of the training officer explaining ideas, such as flanking, etc before the cadets took to the training field to practice maneuvers) like you say, probably the biggest problem is that potential new players (ie, the ones who would like to play but just can't seem to get to grips with the game) have no idea how ArmA needs to be played. It's all very well learning basic controls, but if you're only used to playing solo rambo-shooters, then you will not understand why you continually die using the same approach in ArmA. The "ArmA Cadet Academy" could be used to not only teach them about controls, but to also make ArmA's realistic gameplay approach clear from the start.

Well, as long as they include one (preferably two :) ) long and well produced campaign which is a showcase for ArmA features and tactical play, I will be happy. They can include a crappy FPS-like mission for the people who mistakenly purchased the game thinking it was a CoD-clone...I don't really care. But I demand one hardcore mission, which involves intensive use of squad level tactical play, preferably with some clever HQ level play too. I don't want a bloody hybrid mission where for half the campaign I'm forced to play as some "lonewolf" character "learning the ropes" and eventually progressing to a Commander right at the end. That really sounds annoying.

It's probably the single most effective thing they could do to make the game more "accessible" - WITHOUT dumbing it down in any way. Like DMarkwick says, it would just be an alternative visual interface to existing commands. I could see many new users using it and then progressing on to the keyboard interface if they find it quicker. It should definitely be an optional feature though.

well, i guess i don't. i'm rarely in a situation where I'm unable to pause for a fraction of a second to issue a command. most of the commands are squad state change commands anyway, so once they're set it's a relatively long time before a change in squad state is needed again. anyway, i'm not suggesting that the interface couldn't do with an overhaul (targeting, fe, is NOT nice). i'd really like to see a radial menu of some kind too, that doesn't rely on keyboard input and filters out commands based (to some degree) on context. that's not the same as saying I want to strip out a whole load of commands and make the system less expressive..which is what Wiggam is saying.

we like control, specific precise control. and we don't mind putting in the effort required to learn how the commands work. is that okay with you? or must we all be bored to death with your style of gameplay! :cool:

"getting people into arma" - well, you can lead a horse to water but you can't force it to drink. so your attempts are futile. I've become saddened to see ArmA fans around here who seem to have a bad case of CoD penis envy. all trying desperately to think of ways to make ArmA "attractive". but it's never going to happen. you cannot make a milsim attractive to people with absolutely no interest in milsims. ArmA will always have a steady stream of players who are attracted to the game's depth. all those people who grow-up and eventually become bored of CoD and BF will seek ArmA. The exposure of a new ArmA release will also make the game known to more. but bending the game to fit the expectations of retards will not work. I repeat what others have said, ArmA is NOT a difficult game to play. Its interface (although far from perfect) is NECESSARILY complex. its "lack of dramatic action" is a matter of perspective & perception ONLY. any attempt to please retards will simply diminish ArmA's brilliance and depth. you should think about the detrimental effect your desire to become populist would have on ArmA and reconsider your priorities. After reading some of Marek Španěl's ambitious plans for the original "Game 2" 6-8 years ago, i realize that he has been aiming for complexity beyond even the ArmAs we have today. a retarded instant gratification shooter does not seem to be in his plans for ArmA. you should all be ashamed wanting to change ArmA into a half-baked CoD clone just to attract borderline retards to the game. ---------- Post added at 02:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:19 PM ---------- "bad labelling" is not what put your 7 friends off of arma, i assure you. you are right, some of the labelling is poor, but i simply use my brain to map those poor labels to what makes sense to me personally. even tutorials will not help a great deal, although they _should_ be improved - just to make things slightly less frustrating for new players who would have the potential to stick with the game even with the current poor tutorials.

incase you haven't noticed, ArmA doesn't do "small scale"! but CoD does, so GTFO and go play that instead! :D

In the end, I see no evidence that BIS are asking for charity (ie: unnatural price hikes).And like people have already said, it will damage sales, I'm sure. You want to support BIS? Just buy ToH (which is feeding technology directly into ArmA 3+) and Carrier Command (which looks like it is going to be great remake of my childhood favourite British Telecom game :) ). I will be buying both and I would think that's the kind of support they deserve and want.

BAF was the best, but far too short. PMC was a complete pile of poo and I've got a very bad feeling that ArmA 3's campaign will be similar to it.

It also means EVEN MORE MONEY OUT OF MY POCKET! I'm not a masochist...quit putting ideas in their heads! :p

Games are certainly not the end of the world but for the few hours a day we spend playing our games and participating in their forums - they are important because they affect our "gaming world". If this thread was just about personal preference, OP would simply accept the fact that ArmA is not a game for him and play something else. It is about one guy who clearly does not appreciate the concept of ArmA and wants everyone to know it. He does not like it very much because of its difficulty and brutal realism and is basically demanding that it conforms more to modern generic FPS standards. ArmA is not unique to this. Most of my favourite games are considered by many to be the "most difficult to play" in their genres. For example: Men of War, Hearts of Iron and Supreme Commander are loved by fans for their genuinely challenging gameplay which is unusual in today's market where developers fear to make games beyond the level of an 8 year old girl's comprehension. And on each of the forums for these games you see threads very similar to this one where someone who is attracted to the themes of the games (but does not like their difficulty and complexity) states that the games should be more like other RTS and grand strategy titles. Their basic argument is _always_ that they should be more like the titles they're used to - that is essentially what they are saying. Of course that aggitates fans of these titles because they know what is at stake. Their challenging gameplay is guarded by fans, not because they feel "superior" but because GENUINELY challenging games are few and far between today and it is all too easy for a developer to be convinced to drop the challenging game-play of a popular series to make the "more accessible" to people like OP. For example, this was done in the most recent version of Supreme Commander. This game was diluted to such an extent that they were able to port SC2 to consoles. It was a complete failure because they could not simplify it enough for the mainstream market and it was to simple for original fans. No one ended up liking it. I don't agree with direct personal attacks but I understand the accusation of OP being childlike. He may not actually be a child but he certainly doesn't seem to like mature games and prefers simple games made to be accessible to the average 8 year old.

BIS have already announced that they will be making ArmA 3 more "accessible", and so they're bound to attract a larger slice of the mainstream retard-gamer market and increase revenue. So no need to raise prices.

Peter_Bullet: pha! you speak of "action" and "drama", but your underline motivation speaks of wanting a simple arcade shooter where everything is handed to you on a plate. You even admit that "you don't like to THINK while playing a game" (which is an outragous statement, imo). As Hund said in his post, it's possible to create a dumb arcade mission in ArmA, but BIS should not encourage that aspect of gameplay out of the box. They don't, because ArmA is a consumer MilSim, they know their audience and you are not it. (thankfully) If you want Hollywood drama, BF3 will be out soon. If you want heart stopping but relistic moments like this, which result from poor-planning and tactical awerness - ArmA is your game. ArmA is full of drama, the difference is it's all unscripted and indeterminable - sometimes you may get those magic moments, sometimes you just have to be happy that you and your squadmates made it through the mission alive. The dynamic emergent gameplay enables the possibility of drama, but it's not a given that it will happen. That's one of the major features of ArmA that you have to be willing to accept. No game with heavily scripted events could come close to some of the "scenes" I've experienced while playing ArmA. So please quit whining and go away - your typical lazy gamer mentality is really annoying me. ---------- Post added at 03:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:36 AM ---------- I don't see why catering for people like Peter_Bullet is such "good news" tbh. And I'd like someone to give me a precise definition of "accessibility", because in my book it generally means "retardation". There's a difference between "perfecting/improving" something and making it "accessible". I'd rather BIS used terms like perfecting and improving, than accessibility.

unlike that EA guy, I actually think AI in the game industry is set to see a cold winter as more and more big titles focus on multi-player online play.

you're right, many people on the BIS forums seem to be more concerned with the tactical/simulation aspect of the game, rather than some Hollywood story driven context. that's probably the reason they purchased the game. the "story" in ArmA are your objectives. my advice: just go choose one of the MANY titles which are already available (yes yes, i mean CoD, BF, Crysis, etc.) and quit irritating people here who like ArmA's concept the way it is. Why expend so much energy, just to convince BiS to make ArmA as boring as the others. They are already available for you...go buy them, go play them. you are not forced to play ArmA.

yep, SP is clearly foobared

Like motcha, I've also noticed a few issues playing the BAF campaign with this and past couple of beta patches. 1. Just after you kill the IED guy near the market square, the autosave crashes the game. (this was a couple of patches ago, not sure if it in current) 2. Current build, squad member icons on bottom left of the screen are missing at the start of the campaign. Sure someone is aware already. just thought i'd mention it.

neither and never.

We all know that the AI squad command interface in ArmA is far from perfect. The impression we have of a poor interface is partly due to less than great interface design (it's not as good as, say, Ghost Recon's interface) but also an unavoidable consequence of allowing such unique level of AI squad control. There's a trade-off, on one hand the current interface CAN be improved but on the other it is never going to feel "natural" and intuitive issuing such a variety of squad commands using a keyboard. It will always require practice and patience, that is just something that lazy gamers will have to accept. *NOTE: when i say the interface is poor, I mean just that. The INTERFACE to the squad command set is poor, NOT the idea of expressive squad commands itself.* But hey, that's one of the main reasons for a sequel - to improve on the games good ideas, right? Well, apparetly not. Apparently (judging by this interview with Ivan of BIS which I've just read) ArmA 3 will be "improving" the idea of AI squad command by making it less expressive and cutting it down. I'm genuinely shocked and disappointed! So, as Ivan says, ArmA 3 will make the player the "center of focus". Surrounded by AI over which you have little control, I pressume. Sound familiar? Yes, it sounds like a regular FPS to me, like Battlefield or somesuch dull game where the player's "squad AI" is really just pretty graphical content which surrounds the player to give him a false sense of being in a squad. Were ArmA fans really "complaining about squad command" and asking for it to be diluted/removed, as Ivan claims? Or were they simply expressing a desire for BIS to IMPROVE the interface? Surely I'm not the only one who LOVES the rich expressive "language" of the current set of Squad Commands in ArmA 2 and has taken time to understand and use them effectively? Sure, the effort involved in learning to use squad command is not attractive to "casual gamers" (that big Squad menu will scare them - ooooohhh!!!) Squade command is not a selling point that's going to have potential customers from the CoD community drooling at the mouth. But, really, are BIS trying to go head-to-head with Battlefield and CoD with ArmA 3 or do they want to be the King of their own domain by refining a game which currently offers rich detail and player tactical control? I know for certain that I'm not the only ArmA player who uses the Voice Activated Command program and has been able to bypass the current fidly keyboard interface. Using the VAC interface to ArmA's squad command makes the whole thing natural and you really see the great potential of a rich AI squad command set using a BETTER interface. BIS, if you want to know what is possible with a GOOD interface to your squad command set, just watch some of JojoTheSlayer's videos. This is how dynamic AI squad control can be, once you take the time to learn it. I find myself using much of the squad command set currently in ArmA because the commands enable some surprizingly complex single-player squad manoeuvres. The AI is my friend in ArmA, AI units are my squad buddies - I've come to understand them and speak their language (through the command interface [admittedly via VAC - lol]). AI and player are one and in (almost) perfect syncronicity, working together. :) The commands are NOT a burden to me (and I'm sure many other ArmA fans), they are something to keep and perfect! Currently, the the idea of a squad in ArmA is REAL, it involves communication and learning to talk to your squad members. Without it the game will lose a lot of depth and tactical control. Please BIS, do not dilute Squad Command - many of us know how to use it and appretiate it greatly. Just refine its interface and perfect what you have.